Board of Zoning Appeals

BrOWilSJJUrg TOWNOF~. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Monday, January 10, 2022 The Brownsburg Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 6:00 PM with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. Richard Miller opened the meeting, and a roll call was taken. Members Present: Maria Andrews, Stacy Risk and Marlon Webb Members Absent: None Also Present: Jodi Dickey, AICP- Director of Development Services, Jenna Wertman, AICP, Senior Planner II and Heather Wetzel- Administrative Assistant A. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM B. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. 2022 President (Presided By The 2021 President) 2. 2022 Vice-President (Presided By The 2022 President) 3. 2022 Recording Secretary The Board did not elect officers and would do so at the next meeting with a full board. Town Council had made their Board appointments that night before the BZA meeting. Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to CONTINUE the Election of Officers to the February 14, 2022 meeting, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. D. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) MINUTES 1. December 13, 2021- Regular Meeting Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to APPROVE the December 13, 2021 regular meeting minutes, seconded by Marlon Webb, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. E. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BZDV-11-21-1975 600 W. Northfield Drive - Brownsburg Station Side Yard Setback Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to APPROVE the Findings of Fact for BZDV-11-21-1975, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 2. BZDV-11-21-1976 600 W. Northfield Drive - Brownsburg Station Lot Coverage Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to APPROVE the Findings of Fact for BZDV-11-21-1976, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 1 of 4 F. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. *BZDV-11-21-1973 Northfield Greens Maximum Primary Structure Height A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.31 "Height Standards," as it applies to Art. 2 § 2.18, to exceed the maximum structure height permitted within the Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-415-002.000-016 Represented by: Mike Sells, Wonderwall Planning Services ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 2. *BZDV-12-21-1977 Northfield Greens Buffer Yards A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.40(C)(1) "Landscaping Standards," as it applies to Art. 2 § 2.18, to reduce/eliminate the required buffers for incompatible districts within the Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-415-002.000-016 Represented by: Mike Sells, Wonderwall Planning Services ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING *Applicant representative Mike Sells, Wonderwall Planning Services, appeared to say they had two variance requests and preferred to present both cases together at the next meeting. Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to CONTINUE BZDV-11-21-1973 and BZDV-11-21-1977, seconded by Marlon Webb, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS OPENED, RECESSED AND CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 14, 2022 AT 6 P.M. F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. None G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None H. NEW BUSINESS 1. BZDV-12-21-1984 Orthoindy Buffer Yards A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.40 (C)(l) "Landscaping Standards," as it applies to Art. 2 § 2.32, to reduce/eliminate the required buffers for incompatible districts within the High Intensity General Commercial (C2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-06-300-003.000-016 (part) Represented by: Kevin Buchheit, Krieg Devault LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Jenna Wertman reviewed the case going over the requirements for a variance from development standards. The site was a portion of a larger site annexed in 2021 with C2 zoning for the purpose of developing a regional commercial area. The variance requested would apply to approximately 10 acres. The applicant was requesting a variance from part of the landscape code so that they could maintain visibility for people trying to find the medical offices proposed for the site. The variance was needed to reduce the mounding required between incompatible districts. It would apply to the south side of the property where the C2 zoning was adjacent to residential across the street. Incompatible districts require mounds or walls to be constructed between the districts and the mounds must undulate with a minimum height of 4 V2' and an average height of 6'. She reviewed the site plan and where they would like to reduce the mound to ensure visibility. There would still be mounding and landscaping but the some of these key areas such as the intersection 2 of 4 and middle area of the building would have more visibility. Reviewing the Findings of Fact, the applicant states the use was medical and visibility is important for others to find the site. They were proposing to still have some mounding and were not asking to eliminate all of the mounding. They also noted that the size of the road provides a significant amount of physical separation. For the use and value of the area, they noted the use was similar to one that was approved in the west, which fell under Institutional zoning and did not require additional mounding. Ms. Wertman said an acute Long Term Care Hospital was going in on that site. Orthindy would still have more mounding than that. Staff noted the BZA should determine, if the variance is granted, if it should be conditioned upon the use remaining medical or whether it should apply generally to the property and any future potential uses. In terms of practical difficulties, the applicant noted that the mounding hindered development of the site in terms of having the visibility that a medical use needed. The type of development was desirable under the local goals of the community. This fit in with the area and the district. Staff recommended approval of the development standards variance with the following conditions: (1) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (2) The variance shall apply to the portion of the parcel as described, approximately 10 acres out of the southwest corner of existing tax parcel 32-08-06-300-003.000-015. Maria Andrews said there was a lot of parking and asked if other businesses would be using that parking. Ms. Wertman said the surrounding area could be developed but she did not know if the parking was designed to include those. She said if the parking was over a certain percentage of what the code allowed additional landscaping was required. Petitioner Kevin Buchheit, Krieg Devault represented CCI Development. He clarified that the variance was to reduce the height of the mounding that was required and not to eliminate it. There was concern about visibility of the site for commercial uses and viability of the site. He reviewed the packet they provided and the Findings of Fact. For not being injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community: The landscape and site design accommodate a reduction, not elimination, of a mound that is then supplemented by enhanced landscaping plant materials; Commercial development of the property is supported by comprehensive plan policy and by current zoning; Successful commercial development requires reasonable visibility from abutting streets. 56th Street/E CR 600 N is a very wide arterial street (five lanes with an approximate 70-feet cross-section) in right-of-way that ranges in approximate width from 110 feet to 135 feet, a design that is capable of carrying substantial through traffic. Mr. Buchheit said their site would not have a greater impact to the non-commercial land uses. Regarding the use and value of the area adjacent to the property not being substantially affected adversely: The reduced mound height will include enhanced landscaping materials.; Plan policy recommends and supports an eventual land use transition from agricultural uses (subject property) and single family uses (south of 56th Street/E CR 600 N) to commercial uses (subject property) and multi-family uses (on the south side of 56th Street/E CR 600 N).; Similar commercial development was recently approved on the west side of N CR 900 E, across the street from the subject site, where mounding was not required.; The proposed site and landscaping designs will provide a softening of the visual impact of the proposed commercial development while establishing view windows to the proposed development that are necessary for commercial development viability. The strict application of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties. The required mounding would negatively impact the visibility which would then negatively impact the viability of the project. The Town wants to see commercial development. He ended by saying he had not gotten any inquiries from the public notice. He asked the Board for their approval. 3 of 4  ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Cindy Hohman, 15 Tyler Court, asked what height they were reducing the mounds to. She learned it was 3' to 4 1h'. Mr. Buchheit showed Ms. Hohman where the information could be found. Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-12-21-1984, subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, to reduce the mound to a minimum of 3' and a maximum of 4 1h' as long as the building is used for medical purposes, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED I. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Report From Director Of Development Services Jodi Dickey told the Board they were continuing to update the BZA Rules of Procedure to ensure they meshed with what they did with the Plan Commission. They also wanted to wait until there was a full board to vote on the changes. Staff was working on updating the UDO and was looking at the past few years BZA variances granted for any patterns to see if any standards needed to be changed. Staff would be holding annual training once there was a full board and could hold a joint meeting with the Plan Commission at the same time for the same reason. J. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. None K. CITIZENS COMMENTS RELATING TO AGENDA 1. None L. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to ADJOURN, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion passed 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 6:28 P.M. ATTEST: Heather Wetzel, Administrative Assistant 4 of 4