Board of Zoning Appeals

Browns.uurg TOWNOF~ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Monday, June 14, 2021 The Brownsburg Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 7:00 PM with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. Chris Worley opened the meeting, and a roll call was taken. Members Present: Maria Andrews, Richard Miller and Chris Worley Members Absent: Stacey Risk Also Present: Jodi Dickey, AICP- Director of Development Services, Jenna Wertman, AICP- Senior Planner, Heather Wetzel- Administrative Assistant A. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Jodi Dickey told the Commission that since only three members were present, and three was the quorum, that all three members had to vote in favor or in denial of granting an appeal or no action was taken. Since there was not a full Board, they could make an offer to the petitioner to continue. B. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ELECTION OF OFFICERS l. 2021 Vice President Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to ELECT Richard Miller as the 2021 BZA Vice President, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. D. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) MINUTES 1. May 10, 2021- Regular Meeting Motion: Richard Miller made a motion to APPROVE the May 10, 2021 regular meeting minutes, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. E. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. None F. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. None F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. None G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None 1 of 9 H. NEW BUSINESS 1. *BZDV-05-21-1917 Northfield Drive Business Park Max. Main Floor Area A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.30(A)(2) "Maximum Main Floor Area" as it relates to Article 2, § 2.38 of the Unified Development Ordinance; to exceed the maximum floor area limit within the Low Intensity Industrial (11) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-03-300-004.000-016 Represented by: Brian J. Tuohy, Tuohy Bailey & Moore LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 2. *BZDV-05-21-1918 Northfield Drive Business Park Landscaping A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.40(d) "Buffer Yard Planting Standards" to allow a reduction of the minimum earthen mound height required within the Low Intensity Industrial (11) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-03-300-004.000-016 Represented by: Brian J. Tuohy, Tuohy Bailey & Moore LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING *Both cases were reviewed at the same time with separate advertised public hearings and motions held for each Before they began Chris Worley told the Applicant they could continue the cases as it would require unanimous approval for any official action. Mr. John Moore, attorney for Browning Investments confirmed that if there was not a unanimous vote, they would then get placed on the next agenda. Hearing so, they preferred to proceed. Jenna Wertman said she had the same presentation for both cases as the concept and maps were the same, but the Board would vote on each variance separately. Development Standards Variances were covered in Art. 9.12 of the UDO. The criteria for approval were that it not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; the use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property of the Development Standards Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and the strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. She said the Board could place reasonable conditions if they felt those were necessary. The first case was BZDV-05-21-1917, Northfield Drive Business Park Maximum Main Floor Area. This variance would allow structures that were larger than 150,000 square feet, which was the maximum floor area in the 11 district. She reviewed the location of the property in the northeast corner of Highway 136 and Northfield. There was a concurrent request to the Plan Commission to rezone the site to 11, Low Intensity Industrial, which was why the Board was seeing variances related to the 11 district. There was a companion variance that deal with mounding. There were different zoning districts in the area: 11, commercial zoning, Neighborhood Commercial and residential areas to the south. The maximum main floor area came from Art. 2.38, where the maximum for any single building was 150,000 square feet. Rather than requesting a higher intensity zoning the Applicant chose to do zoning that matched and ask for a variance that fit the building needs. The site was currently undeveloped. Ms. Wertman said that variances ran with the land so while the site might be later subdivided the variance would apply to any parcels created from the parent tract. She added that the variance would be functionally irrelevant if the zoning approval was not successful. She reviewed a conceptual map showing a 227,000 square feet rectangular shaped building and a building on the north side was 125,000 with a 75,000 square foot expansion potential. Both of those would be over the maximum for a single building. Reviewing the Findings of Fact and the public health, safety, morals, the Applicant noted this was 2 of 9 in close proximity to other uses including office spaces and was overall less than the maximum square footage that could be built with separate buildings. I1 allowed no more than five buildings, all of which could be 150,000 square feet. The Applicant was not hitting the total amount that could be allowed in that district in individual buildings. For the use not being injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, the proposal was happening in an area with similar development patterns. The Comprehensive Plan noted that that industrial partnered with larger buffers and further setbacks could be a good thing. Again, there were fewer buildings and fewer total square footage that was allowed in 11. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in a practical difficulty, 150,000 square foot maximum was incredibly restrictive compared to what was being built today and what was desirable for industrial style buildings. That would impose a practical difficulty in developing something that fit the district, except for size. Based on their Detailed Statement of Reasons Staff believed the criteria had been met. She cited BZDV-05-21-1918 Northfield Drive Business Park Landscape Buffers, and said changing the zoning to I1 triggered mounding requirements for incompatible districts; this applied to the southern and eastern property borders. The petitioner was requesting a variance to reduce the required mound height minimum and minimum average height. They would like to propose a mound that undulated between 3' and 4'. The need for the variance originated because the required mounding would wipe out a good portion of the required parking. As she mentioned before, variances ran with the land and this would apply to both tracks if they were divided. She showed exhibits with the parking line and mound width and impact to parking. Reviewing the Findings of Fact and being non-injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare, she reviewed that the building was in close proximity to other industrial uses and consistent with the existing development patterns. The loading docks were located interior to the site so the reduced height of that mound was not leaving increased visibility on that portion of the building. The use and value adjacent to the area would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner due to the combination of uses and similar development patterns happening around the area. The combination of major thoroughfares, the legal drain and all the other factors pushed the buildings away from the residential areas and increased the buffer from a variety of uses. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties. The zoning code did not allow the loading docks to face streets. It also called for a specific amount of parking. To do all of those things and also do the mound at the full height and full width would eliminate a row of parking. Staff believed all of the criteria had been met and recommended approval. The Applicant representative, John Moore, appeared before the Board stating that Browning Investment sought to develop and improve property located at the northeast corner of US Highway 136 and W. Northfield Drive. The property was bounded to the east by County Road 625 E, to the north by railroad tracks, to the west by W. Northfield Drive, and to the south by Highway 136. There were commercial uses and industrial uses to the north- Sunbelt Rentals, Contract Lumber, a self-storage facility and Ditch Witch. The site would have two office warehouse buildings. The building to the north was for a company that was currently located in Indianapolis who would like to move their headquarters to Brownsburg. They have been in business for over 40 years. The relocation would bring approximately 80 jobs paying on average $30/hour. The second building to the south would be built for use as an office warehouse building as well. The user of that building had yet to be identified. The second building was expected to bring 150 to 250 jobs Brownsburg. The projected investment in the site would be approximately 20 to $25 million. The north building was just shy of 125,000 square feet with a maximum of 200,000 square feet with the expansion area. The building to the south was expected to be between 225,000 to 250,000 square feet. Browning Investments felt a building of that size would attract better tenants and met market demand. As Ms. Wertman stated, all loading docks were interior to the site. Access 3 of 9 to the site would be off of Northfield Drive. He showed a photograph of the company headquarters satellite building in Columbus, Ohio and said something similar would be built. He showed an image of a typical Browning Investment warehouse office building for the southern building. Mr. Moore pointed out that it was not a typical Splitface white block warehouse building, it had more of an office look to it. They would meet the Brownsburg architectural standards for facades. Mr. Moore said they were requesting two variances and there was a companion petition to rezone the property from Agricultural to 11. The first variance request was for buildings larger than 150,000 square feet. They were looking at roughly 125,000 to the north with the possibility of a 75,000 square foot expansion, and then 225,000-250,000 square foot building to the south. He said 11 allowed up to five buildings on the site and each could be 150,000 square feet allowing 750,000 square feet total. They could do five different buildings all 100,000 square feet, but that did not work in the market for warehousing and it would not attract the kind of tenant they wanted. The ordinance allowed 70% lot coverage and they were at 50% with this development. They would respectfully requested the variance be approved. Exceeding the building size would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. The approval would not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property in a substantially adverse manner, it was less intense with less lot coverage than what was permitted in the 11 district. The practical difficulty in the use of the property was they had a specific user asking looking to relocate from Indianapolis to Brownsburg and Browning knew the kind of tenant they wanted to attract and the south building needed to be 225,000- 250,000 square feet. He said Staff recommended approval of the variance for larger buildings. For the second variance, the south and east borders required a berm with an average of 6' height. They were requesting a berm that was undulating with 3-4' in height from the existing grade. On top of that would be 4 pt. landscaping per 100 lineal feet. Mr. Moore again stated that this was not a typical warehouse building. He could see the need for a 6' mound with a white Split-Face block building but their building was more of an office type and was more aesthetically pleasing. The tenants would want some visibility and not to be hidden behind mounds. He reviewed the proposed site plan and said there was significant distance to the east, there was a 75' buffer yard and then drainage; a 6' or 3' mound would not make much of a difference. He talked about the line of sight from 136, a 3' mound with mature trees on top would provide a nice buffer. Since all of the loading docks were interior, the parking had to be exterior. They were trying to bring a significant number of jobs to Brownsburg and there were parking requirements. The height of the berm was not the problem, it was the width. The berm getting wider did not change the line of sight but they would lose a row of parking. Mr. Moore suggested the height of the mound met the intent of the requirement through 3' and landscaping on top. Staff agreed and said the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as they would still have a 3' landscape to provide a sightline buffer. The approval would not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in a substantially adverse manner as to the east there was a 75' buffer yard and detention ponds, and there would still be 3' landscaped with trees that provided sightline protection and the same thing was true along 136 to the south. Lastly, if they were to meet the ordinance and have the 6' tall mound they would lose a row of required parking so that resulted in a practical difficulty in the use of the property. Staff was recommending approval of the development standards variance for the height of the mound. Mr. Moore shared a letter of support from Ramona Henderson who was the owner of the site. He included a citation from the TECH review committee where they stated "This site is located on Northfield Drive which was designed as an industrial corridor. The proposed use is light industrial including a company headquarters, office, and warehouse space. This is a perfect use for this site 4 of 9 and a great economic development project for the town." He summarized by saying this development would allow for the company headquarters of a 2nd generation business to move from Indianapolis to Brownsburg with approximately 80 jobs at the company headquarters at an average wage of $30/hour. There would be approximately 150-250 jobs at the office/warehouse building. All of the loading docks were internal to the site. This was a $20M - $25M investment. The TECH review committee supported the development and variance requests and Staff supported the development and variance requests. He asked for the Board's support. Maria Andrews asked what type of business was going to be relocating to the smaller building and learned it was a commercial business. Ms. Andrews asked if increase in the employees in Brownsburg would include the Indianapolis employees or the new positions. Mr. Moore said it would be both. Ms. Andrews asked who the tenant was for the larger building and Mr. Moore said that was to be determined. Mark Susemichel, Chief Development Officer for Browning Investments said they considered the facilities to be office/warehouse industrial type buildings. The pandemic created a significant change, now there was a very heavy emphasis on a higher office use products. It was not an Amazon product distribution, if that helped. It would probably be a corporate headquarters type office and a similar use to the other building. Richard Miller asked what type of truck traffic they anticipated with the two users. Mr. Susemichel said they would have full size trucks but he was not sure how many. It would depend on the type of users. The building would have dock positions planned. The design of the back of the buildings was intentional. They have isolated all the traffic to Northfield Drive and stayed away from 136. He said they would be doing a traffic study to look at the impact. Ms. Andrews did not see where they would have enough parking for all of the employees. Mr. Moore said there were 262 spaces for lot 1. Ms. Andrews asked about the traffic, lights and noise as there were homes in close proximity to this area. Chris Worley reminded Ms. Andrews that those kind of considerations would be done in the next steps in the process when the rezone was heard by the Plan Commission. Mr. Miller said the field to the east had been approved as an R3 and he thought it would be beneficial to those residents to keep at least a 6' berm on their side as they would not want headlights coming into their neighborhood; same with the street to the south, there were existing homes there. The height of the berm did have an impact on the headlights. He had some concerns reducing the berm, especially on the east. Mr. Miller did not know if Northfield had a Level of Service to handle that traffic. The intersections were already not adequate just with regular vehicular traffic. There was not much along Northfield that had substantial tractor trailer traffic, just the minor delivery vehicles that went to Lowe's and Walmart. That was a huge public safety concern for him with tractor trailers making left and right turns, the Northfield and 136 intersection was busy and the railroad was there. Those were significant concerns and no traffic study had been completed. He asked if a study on impact to residential values had been done. Mr. Moore said they did not have a fiscal impact study. The residences to the east had 625 E and 75' of buffer yard, and then the drainage area so there was a significant football field size distance there. The south had 136 and then an 80' right-of-way, a buffer yard, the berm and the parking. He did not believe there would be a negative impact on residential values. They were not using 136 for access into the site and there was a significant distance from the buildings to the homes. Ms. Wertman said the Plan Commission would deal with the use itself. The Board was looking at if the use and value was impacted by going above 150,000 square or if the reduction in the mound would adversely impacting the use and value. The traffic study would be done later for zoning. 5 of 9 Mr. Miller said it would be easier if the property was already Il. Right now the planned use was not I1 and it was not similar to the other facilities along Northfield. It was hard to make a decision on something that was hypothetical when there were significant impacts based on zoning. He said there was no study done to say if the residential values would or would not be impacted. Mr. Moore said they sent out notices and heard back from one surrounding property owner. He had not heard from anyone else who believed it would impact their property values. Mr. Miller said the public notices did not go out to the residential owners because of the requirements so people may not have received those or know about the proposal. Mr. Moore said they did the requirements for surrounding owners. Mr. Miller said the property owners who owned the fields and businesses were notified and not the homeowners, especially for the R3 area that was not yet developed. Mr. Moore said it was a matter of the schedule of the meetings and timing with their contractual requirements. The variance meeting came first and then the rezone two weeks later. They were happy to make the granting of the variances subject to the rezoning approval. Mr. Worley did not have any questions for the maximum main floor variance. For the landscaping variance, he asked Staff if the parking spaces were eliminated by a 6' berm would cause them to fall below the required number of parking spaces. Ms. Wertman said they needed to have one space per employee on the largest shift and then one space per visitor for every 10 employees. Industrial zoning did have significant parking. She reviewed where the spaces would be lost. Mr. Worley asked Staff if they had a diagram showing the total length and width of the buffering regardless of the berm. Mr. Moore reviewed the conceptual site plan and showed the legal drain, 35' setback, buffer yard and then detention ponds. He did not have an exact measurement but they were more than doubling it in most places. There also was a significant portion of the parcel set aside as common area. Ms. Wertman showed the distances and said there was a good amount. Mr. Worley asked where the berm would be built. Ms. Wertman said it would be the setback area. Mr. Worley asked if the location of the detention basins were firm right now. Mr. Susemichel said due to the residential on the east side they thought that was an appropriate location. Ms. Dickey added that the southeast corner had an existing lift station for the Town. It would not interfere with the berm replacement but would make the building farther away from the neighborhood. OPEN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING BZDV-05-21-1917 John Rabold, 18 S Tocovi a.- Mr. Rabold said the area was surrounded with I1/C2 and there was a fair amount of truck traffic already with Contract Lumber, Walmart, Lowe's and Sunbelt Rentals. It seemed like a misuse to have a parcel that big and not allow a 250,000 square foot building. The neighborhood to the north should not have a problem as it looked like a nice building and there were trees and mounding next right to it. He was in favor of the project. Ben Lacey, 28 Carnaby Court- Mr. Lacey was in favor of the project. He said the opportunity to move corporate headquarters here with 80 jobs and then the second project on the other lot had another 150 to 250 jobs was significant for the community. The average salary was $60,000-$90,000 for the headquarters, which would have a significant economic impact. There would be a $20-$25 million investment on a parcel that was currently bringing in $974 a year in property taxes, which would now bring in about $181,000 a year in property taxes. Mr. Lacey said concerns with noise and light pollution could be addressed with the use of coniferous plants and trees. He did not think traffic was a big concern as the use was already there with Contract Lumber, Sunbelt, Ditch Witch, Public Storage, etc. There was a median on Northfield Drive so the curb cuts would only be on Northfield Drive; they would only have right-turn traffic on Northfield that would head back to 74. Drivers did not 6 of 9 waste time, they wanted to hop on the interstate and get to where they needed to go. Debbie Cook, 1789 Woodstock Drive- Ms. Cook spoke in favor and said the project was a huge economic development impact for the community. Northfield was developed as an industrial park and this was a perfect use for the parcel. It was a huge investment resulting in many jobs. She said the stated concerns were legitimate and would be addressed at future meetings. As far as the size of the building, they could put over 500,000 square feet of building on that if there were individual buildings. The market did not support that right now. If Brownsburg was going to keep up with their neighbors and bring $30/hr. jobs to Brownsburg, they needed to be flexible and adapt to the market. Jim Staton, 1789 Woodstock Drive- Mr. Staton spoke in favor and encouraged approval of the variances. He lived on Woodstock and heard the train; that was just the sound of commerce. He could not imagine the truck or vehicle traffic would really be more impactful than the train. He was sure the folks to the south could hear the train very well and in fact the buildings might block some of the sound of the train. He said it was a reasonable requests to put 450,000 square feet on that property dropping it down from 750,000 square feet. Mr. Staton said Browning produced very nice buildings that were aesthetically pleasing. They were an institutional type structures that would make corporate citizens look very closely at Brownsburg and hopefully make the choice to come here. Jeff Eder, 2928 Westerfield Ct. Mr. Eder said market conditions do change and the code sometimes did not keep up with us market conditions. He was in favor of a project for Brownsburg bringing jobs to the community. CLOSE ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING BZDV-05-21-1917 OPEN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING BZDV-05-21-1918 Ben Lacey, 28 Carnaby Court- Mr. Lacey said he supported the variance request based upon the number of parking spaces that were needed and the berm would impact that number which create a hardship. He though they could increase plantings on the berm which would help facilitate the visual and audio shield for those on the southern edge and the eastern side. Jim Stecky, managing partner for Sunbelt Rentals spoke in favor of both variance requests. He wanted to know what the future plan was for 625 East and ifthere was a plan to cross the railroad. He thought the project was a positive move for the Town of Brownsburg with decent paying jobs. Jim Staton, 1789 Woodstock- Mr. Staton said as far as the concern of headlights going south across 136, the building itself would likely be built up four or five feet because of the loading docks. Then there was the berm going up on top of that so most light would get deflected upward and not across 136. The need for the variance due to parking was related to the ability to market the building. A user could come in and say it was a great building but they had 250 people and there was only parking for 100. John Rabold, 18 S Tocovi Ct.- Mr. Rabold said the mounding was a reasonable request. He did not think truck lights would be a factor, with the mound and trees it would not glare in your eyes. Mr. Rabold said the economic impact of 3% property tax was direly needed. He added that Northfield Drive on the east side had significant truck traffic and there was also a subdivision over there and there were no complaints. CLOSE ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING BZDV-05-21-1918 When asked about 625, Ms. Wertman said she was not aware of any projects. Ms. Dickey added that the crossing was recently closed so the Town could open up another crossing so she did not 7 of 9  think that 625 would ever get extended across the tracks. Mr. Worley said any future plan would be subject to a board or commission review. Seeing no other discussion, Mr. Worley called for any motions for the Max. Main Floor Area case. Motion: Chris Worley made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-05-21-1917, there was no second and the motion FAILED. Mr. Worley said no further motions would result in a no vote on the variance request. Mr. Miller said he had a hard time voting for or against a hypothetical zoning. He did not like that they did not have a quorum. Ms. Andrews felt there were too many unknowns right now. The Applicant representative, Mr. Moore, requested to continue the case until after the rezoning hearing. They would work with their seller and see if they could answer some of the questions and then also allow for a larger board to hear the matter. Motion: Richard Miller made a motion to CONTINUE BZDV-05-21-1917 to July 12, 2021, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Motion: Moving onto the Landscaping request, Chris Worley made a motion to APPROVE BZDV- 05-21-1918, seconded by Richard Miller, motion FAILED 2 In Favor/1 Opposed (Andrews)/0 Abstained. As there was no action taken, the case was continued to the July 12, 2021 meeting. Ms. Andrews noted she would like to see the landscaping more defined without deciduous trees. I. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Report From Director Of Development Services No comments J. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Update To The Rules Of Procedure This would be pushed to the July meeting so the full board could vote. Richard Miller preferred to have the applicant present their case first. Maria Andrews felt the same way. Chris Worley said he liked when Staff presented first. Once all five members were present they could discuss that issue more. Mr. Worley had a few other comments on the Rules regarding the wording of who could keep time for public comment speakers and the format for case identification formats. K. CITIZENS COMMENTS RELATING TO AGENDA 1. Jim Staton Mr. Staton said he had served on boards of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission. He was a planner by education. What happened tonight was unconscionable. They should have voted on the merits of the project, which was exceptional. Mr. Staton said the Town continues to injure itself by saying no to everything and looking for reasons to say no. There were zero negative comments and it should have been approved. This would send messages to the development world about Brownsburg. They had all the information they needed and did not need to be basing decisions on information they did not need to consider. 2. Gary Avery Mr. Avery agreed with Mr. Staton. He was embarrassed for the Town. The developer had a great presentation. They were bringing a great opportunity. He was disappointed there were some Board members missing. This was a costly loss and they needed to think of the big picture as 8 of 9  property around there was not going to be residential. He hoped there was a full zoning board next time and that they would see the urgency of the project. 3. John Rabold Mr. Rabold agreed with the others as well. He said this was embarrassing and that emotion and perceived problems should not be a part of the process. Brownsburg has a bad reputation of being hard to deal with in the developing world and that reputation just got increased in spades. There was no one there remonstrating and the Board remonstrated against itself. L. ADJOURNMENT Maria Andrews said for the record that she was not opposed to the project and she did respect the recommendation from Staff. She saw there were some unanswered questions. She said it was a great project and they did a great job presenting. She hoped they would come back. Motion: Richard Miller made a motion to ADJOURN, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 8:34 P.M . Cliris Worley, President ATTEST: Heather Wetzel, Admi istrative Assistant 9 of 9