Board of Zoning Appeals

B.rowns.uurg TOWNOF~. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Monday, March 14, 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, Jeff Humphreys, Stacey Risk, Brett Scowden 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. ANNUAL BOARD TRAINING 1. Jodi Dickey conducted annual Board of Zoning Appeals training. D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. 2022 President ( Presided By The 2021 Acting- President) Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to ELECT Marlon Webb President, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. 2. 2022 Vice- President ( Presided By The 2022 President) Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to ELECT Jeff Humphreys Vice President, seconded by Brett Scowden, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. 3. 2022 Recording Secretary Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPOINT Heather Wetzel Recording Secretary, seconded by Marlon Webb, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. E. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING( S) MINUTES 1. February 14, 2022- Regular Meeting Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to APPROVE the February 14, 2022 regular meeting minutes, seconded by Jeff Humphreys, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. F. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BZSE- 01- 22- 1993 303 S. School Street " Dwelling, Duplex" Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPROVE the Findings of Fact for BZSE- 01- 22- 1993, 1 of 9  seconded by Stacey Risk, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. G. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. None F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 The cases were reviewed together with separate public hearings and motions for each. Jenna Wertman said these cases were for Northfield Greens. This parcel was located behind Kroger with access off Lorraine Street ( close to Grant) and Northfield. It was originally zoned EC and rezoned last year to M2 which allows for multifamily townhomes, apartments, etc. The proposed townhomes would be individual for- sale units. The site was 10. 61 acres. The area had a mix of different zoning districts with Cl, C2, EC, M3, and IS institutional uses. The first request was to increase the height from 40' to 43' to allow the townhomes to have garages under the living space. Ms. Wertman showed an example of the front and back elevations with a height of 41 V2' giving room for variations in units. She reviewed the Findings of Fact. Approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare as the applicant noted the use was compatible with the surrounding area and would be an enhancement to the community. Staff notes that the original zoning of EC would have permitted a height of 70' so this request was significantly less. Staff also noted that the Fire Department wanted to see additional drywall between the living space and the garage and the Board should determine if that should be a commitment on the variance. The Applicant felt the use and value of the area would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. This would provide an additional consumer base for the surrounding area. The applicant said the strict application would result in a practical difficulty as the height requirement would restrict the development to a lower pitched roof. Staff noted there were some site restrictions that lend better to a design where the garage was under the living spaces versus detached. A more steeply pitched roof also would add architectural interest, and the height was well below the original zoning. Ms. Wertman reviewed the site and said it was an oddly shaped parcel. There were a lot of areas that cannot be used because they were needed for drainage. The stub streets were already in and access and infrastructure was set. Staff felt they met the criteria needed for approval of the height variance. The second variance was for the buffer yard. Ms. Wertman showed an exhibit and indicated where the applicant wanted to preserve the existing tree lines. M2 zoning was not considered an appropriate adjacent use for C2 or EC so that triggers section 5.40( C) which requires mounding to be put in with an average of 6'. She showed images of the site when it was leafed out. Staff 2 of9 reviewed the standards and Findings. Approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare as the use was compatible with the surrounding area and would benefit the local merchants. Staff noted that the existing trees might provide the same or better screening than a mound as the mound only had to average of 6' tall and some of the existing trees and brush probably exceeded that height, although there were some sparse areas. Ms. Wertman said if the townhomes were already built and commercial came in next to it, it would not require a mound. There was inconsistency in the UDO as far as those two districts being close to each other. The use and value would not being substantially impacted as the site was already compressed, and the space required to take down the trees and install a mound would further restrict the oddly shaped parcel. There also was a utility easement that restricts where the mound could go. The strict application would result in practical difficulties as Table 1 at the end of the district section does not consider M2 to be incompatible adjacent to C2 like the district text does. The applicant also notes there is no landscape for the mound required by the UDO and execution of the code would result in less desirable buffering. Staff noted that there were inconsistencies in the buffering for the district and having the existing trees may actually end up proving more buffering. With that, the oddly shaped parcel, easements, and limited configuration of the site due to the road connections, Staff felt there were practical difficulties. Staff recommended approval of BZDV- 11- 21- 1973 with the following conditions: 1) Primary structures shall not exceed 43' in height or 3 stories. 2) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Staff recommended approval of BZDV- 12- 21- 1977 with the following conditions: 1) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Marlon Webb received confirmation that the Fire Department' s recommendation regarding the additional drywall was not part of Staff' s original recommendation. Maria Andrews felt the existing tree line consisted only of bushes. Ms. Wertman said it was a mix of bushes and trees of different heights. The Board could request additional supplementation or ask for other changes. Mike Sells, Wonderwall Planning Services, appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Cranfill Development. He said the reasons for the height and landscape variance were part of the staff synopses and said he felt they satisfied all the Findings of Fact. The parcel was platted since November 6, 1992 and has not been developed. There were challenges with the site that limited what they could do in that space. Mr. Sells said he has worked with Cranfill since 1994 and they were very particular about landscaping and go above and beyond what the ordinance requires. He felt approval of the variances would have a positive influence upon the local community and the merchants in the area. The proposed 77 units would impact restaurants and shopping areas in the area. If they were required to provide the mound, it was only a 6' mound and there was no landscaping required on top. They felt maintaining the existing vegetation would serve a better buffer. The south end of the property had a significant amount of vegetation. He noted if the landscape variance was not approved and the buffer was installed, it would compress the site so much that they would lose 23 of the 77 for- sale units for a loss of 34% of the project. Mr. Sells said the site currently has been a site for people to dump tires, appliances and more and felt this project would be positive for the community. Maria Andrews received confirmation if they only had mounding, there would be no landscaping on top. She received confirmation the townhomes and common areas would have landscaping. Ms. Andrews confirmed these were single- family homes and not rentals. 3 of 9  Brett Scowden asked if there were garages under the living spaces on all of the town homes and Mr. Sells said the units that backed up to the perimeter would have the garage underneath the buildings. Mr. Scowden asked if the alleys were rear- loaded and Mr. Sells said the ones facing the main road were rear- loaded units. Mr. Scowden asked if the buildings were lowered three feet if the required roof pitch could still be met. Mr. Sells said thought they could revise the buildings but they would not have the roof pitch they desired as far as aesthetic or architecture. They did not think it was a major stretch of the ordinance as it would be about foot and a half higher than what the zoning allowed. Mr. Scowden asked about the conversation with the Fire Marshal regarding the drywall separation. Matt Roush, Ryan Homes Land Manager, said they had met with the Fire Marshal and they would build to the fire code. Mr. Scowden asked staff if the additional drywall was to meet code, or was it on top of the fire code. Ms. Wertman thought it might be in addition to but they could put something down that was accepted by the Fire Department. Mr. Roush said the conversation was fairly informal but they would agree with what he required. Mr. Scowden confirmed with staff that C2 was considered a more intense use than M2 and the buffering would not be required if the situation was reversed. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV- 11- 21- 1973 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV- 11- 21- 1973 Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to APPROVE BZDV- 11- 21- 1973, subject to and conditioned upon staff recommendations as well as the additional drywall between the living space and the garage as directed by the Fire Department, seconded by Brett Scowden, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV- 11- 21- 1977 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV- 11- 21- 1977 Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to APPROVE BZDV- 11- 21- 1977, subject to and conditioned upon staff recommendations as well as requiring the applicant to clean up the existing landscape, seconded by Jeff Humphreys, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. 3. ** BZDV- 01- 22- 1995 Talon Woods Architectural Standards A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.17 " Architectural Standards," as it applies to Art. 2 § 2.18, to reduce the minimum building materials percentage required within the Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential ( M2) District. Parcel No( s): 32- 07- 24- 200- 005. 000- 016 and 32- 07- 24- 200- 013. 000- 016 Represented by: Derek Hays, Olthof Homes ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 4. ** BZDV- 01- 22- 1996 Talon Woods Front Yard Setback A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5. 63 " Setback Standards," as it applies to Art. 2 § 2.18, to encroach upon the minimum front yard setback required within the Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential ( M2) District. Parcel No( s): 32- 07- 24- 200- 005. 000- 016 and 32- 07- 24- 200- 013. 000- 016 Represented by: Derek Hays, Olthof Homes ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 5. ** BZDV- 01- 22- 1997 Talon Woods Maximum Lot Coverage A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5. 21 " Density Standards," as it applies to Art. 2 § 2.18, to exceed the maximum lot coverage permitted within the Medium Density 4 of 9 Multiple- Family Residential ( M2) District. Parcel No( s): 32- 07- 24- 200- 005. 000- 016 and 32- 07- 24- 200- 013. 000- 016 Represented by: Derek Hays, Olthof Homes ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING The cases were reviewed together with separate public hearings and motions for each. Jenna Wertman said Talon Woods was requesting variances for architectural standards, front yard setback and lot coverage. She said the site was rezoned in 2021 from AG to M2. It was 12. 99 acres and the applicant would construct townhomes with detached alley- loaded garages, landscaped grounds and common areas, and preserve some of the existing tree stand. The site was surrounded by a mix of zoning districts including Institutional, Agricultural, Parks and Rec, PD, 12 and R3. The variance requests include reducing the 50% brick requirement, reducing the perimeter street front yard setback on the northeast corner and increasing the 75% lot coverage. Ms. Wertman noted that the overall site still had to meet 45% lot coverage. Revisions to the M2 District distinguishes between overall site coverage maximums and individual units. The first variance was from § 5.17, Multiple- family Residential Architectural Standards. Based on the definition of "building" in the UDO, each individual townhome would be separate a building and have to meet the 50% brick requirement. Windows and doors are excluded from the surface area and could result in some odd cut offs for certain styles of architecture. Reviewing the Findings of Fact, Staff said the applicant stated approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety and morals as the area was already developed and it would not have an impact. Staff noted that reducing the brick was unlikely to cause any direct issues. For the use and value of the area, the applicant said their proposal was consistent with the area and would not have any affect. Staff felt that providing that mix of materials could result in a better visual appearance. They included a potential commitment that the facades meet the requirement using brick, stone or fiber cement ( although fiber cement does not count as stone or masonry based on Town code). The strict application of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties as the applicant notes their elevations were unique and exceeded the UDO. Staffed cautioned that while the elevations did likely exceed the UDO in terms of the variety of architectural features, it does not exceed the UDO for materials. Staff said the requirements were geared more toward an apartment use which could meet the 50% requirement by varying the heights of brick used along the entire fa<; ade, whereas townhomes have to be viewed on each individual unit. Staff has proposed a condition that require a minimum of some brick on each unit and maintain the requirements for 50% brick on the front and side of end/ corner units. The second variance was for the front yard setback for the northeast corner to request a 15' setback where 30' was required. This was in response to a jog in the right- of- way near the roundabout. Ms. Wertman displayed an image showing the location of the right- of- way lines. The applicant said approval of the variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals as the development would face out towards the perimeter streets. The reduction would maintain a safe distance from the already built roundabout and allow the structures to remain in line with each other. Staff said the jog was to accommodate utilities. The roundabout was already built. This area was also further back along the approach lanes which would not create a safety concern. Visually it would not be noticeable since the area was already completed. The applicant said the use the value of the area would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner as it was consistent with the surrounding area and should not affect the value. Staff felt keeping that visual 5 of 9 alignment should not impact the value in a substantially adverse manner. A strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty as the right- of- way makes an inconsistent turn. The buildings would stay a consistent distance from the road. Staff said the carve out was done for utilities and it did square off a little bit weird. The site was somewhat narrow and the applicant was attempting to maintain trees near the southwest side. The layout was logical in terms of access for residents and safety personnel. The last variance was for lot coverage. Ms. Wertman said in the M2 district, maximum lot coverage allowed varies by the overall site and the individual townhome lot. The overall site has to meet 45% lot coverage. The applicant' s project exceeds this with more than 7 of the 12 acres in common area/ open space. In the M2 district, individual townhome lots cannot exceed 75% lot coverage. To meet that the applicant stated they would have to expand the lots quite a bit which would limit the amount of shared common space and open areas. The use of detached garages eats into the amount of open space that each lot can have. The applicant would also like to create a patio area for each unit. Ms. Wertman showed a graphic of the difference between overall lot coverage and individual lot coverage. Reviewing the Findings of Fact, the applicant said approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare as the project was designed to have rear- loading garages off the alley instead of attached garages. Staff noted more than 50% of the overall site was maintained on a community scale. As it would create a smaller individual outdoor space for property owners, Staff would like to see a condition for some type of amenity space that residents could enjoy such as a dog park, grilling area or playground. The use and value of the area would not be affected substantially in an adverse manner as the applicant says it was consistent with the surrounding area. Staff said there was extensive open space and common areas on the site so the individual lot coverage would not be very noticeable. The applicant felt the strict application would result in a practical difficulty as the community was geared toward low- maintenance living and the courtyards between the townhome and detached garages provide outdoor spaces for each resident. Staff said in order to meet the lot coverage requirement, the applicant would either need to reduce a lot of the common area to lengthen the lots or do taller structures where the garage was under it. With the design they were doing, there were some practical difficulties in using the site. The town home requirements also necessitate developments with alleys which leads to some detached scenarios with garages. For BZDV- 01- 22- 1995, Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) Facades shall utilize a mix of brick, stone, or fiber cement siding to meet the 50% masonry requirement on front facades. Brick shall be included on all front facades at an amount not less than 1/3 of the height of the first floor of each unit. 2) All corner units ( ends of buildings) shall be brick on at least the first floor on the front and side of the building in lieu of the 50% requirement. 3) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. For BZDV- 01- 22- 1996, Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) The front yard setback reduction shall apply only to the northeast corner of the site, specifically the eastern- most building along E 400 N. 2) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. For BZDV- 01- 22- 1997, Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 6 of 9  1) The development will include an amenity area such as a dog park, community grill area, playground or outdoor exercise equipment area, or similar amenity that complements the development. 2) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Ms. Wertman and Brett Scowden had a discussion about the fa~ de and the 50% requirement and how that applied to each individual townhome being considered separate. Jeff Humphreys asked if they met the 45% requirement and Ms. Wertman said they did as they were putting more than 50% aside as open space. Joe Lenehan, Olthof Homes, came forward and reviewed the open space area stating they were saving the wooded area which was approximately 1/ 3 of the site. They considered doing a PD as the single- family rear- loaded detached townhome product did not fit a standard zoning ordinance, which was why they needed three variances. The product was a two- story detached- garage rear- loaded townhome building with five different floor plans. They were all for- sale homes. They would have multiple elevations, building sizes, and configurations. They believed the strict application of the architectural requirements provided a practical difficulty as they would not get the variety they were looking for. He showed example elevations of the variety and placement of architectural materials such as horizontal siding, board and batten, and brick and stone masonry on the front and the sides of the buildings. He said they could meet Staff' s conditions with one exception with the side elevations. There were different levels of masonry on some units as they carry the same material around from the front to the sides and it could look awkward if they had to bring it up or down versus what was on the front. He said he was willing to commit to fiber cement siding instead of vinyl and to be allowed to use the elevation sides as presented. Mr. Lenehan felt they met the three Findings of Fact as there would not be any health, safety or moral concerns. They were able to change the architectural styles and provide the anti- monotony the ordinance called for. They did not believe it would negatively affect property values as the units would be $ 275, 000+. The front yard setback was needed as the northeast corner right- of- way had a jagged edge. He showed the various setbacks from the right- of- way and noted the edge of pavement did not change and was not any closer to the road. Safety was not an issue as the roadway did not come any closer to the front of the unit sidewalk. The practical difficulty was created by the jagged right- of-way. He felt it would not have any effect on value. They agreed to limit the variance to that building and those two units. Mr. Lenehan said the lot coverage variance was needed due to having a single- family attached townhome with a detached garage. Their proposal creates a private courtyard with an outdoor living space but did result in a higher lot coverage. As a result of the comments during the Plan Commission, they increased the preservation of trees and increased the open space. He said the variance would not create any health or safety concerns and felt it would add to the value with the private outdoor space. He felt they had a practical difficulty having the townhomes back- to-back without a zoning classification made for those types of units, it would require a PD or several variances. Mr. Lenehan said had a small amenity up in the northeast corner but were agreeable to Staff' s requirement for a second amenity area. Mr. Scowden said the Town required 50% brick, stone or other decorative masonry in all of the residential districts and asked what the practical difficulty was as the property could still be used without the variance. Mr. Lenehan said they were trying to meet the spirit of the ordinance regarding anti- monotony and providing a variety of looks. 7 of 9 Ms. Andrews received clarification on the use of single- family home and multifamily zoning. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV- 01- 22- 1995 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV- 01- 22- 1995 Ms. Wertman reminded the Board that the petitioner asked for variations in the conditions and that likely needed some discussion. The Board discussed the language with Staff. The conditions were ultimately revised to read: f±7 Facades shall utilize a mix of brick, stone, or fiber cement siding to meet the 50% masonry requirement on front facades. Brick shall be included on all front facades at an amount not less than 1/3 of the height of the first floor of each unit. Facades shall utilize a mix of brick, stone, and/ or fiber cement on the front and side facades, with each having at minimum of a brick or stone wainscot. Facades shall be as presented to the Board. 2) All corner units ( ends of buildings) shall be brick on at least the first floor on the front and side of the building in lieu of the 50% requirement. All other facades shall utilize fiber cement as the siding material. 3) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion: Jeff Humphreys made a motion to APPROVE BZDV- 01- 22- 1995, subject to and conditioned upon staff recommendations as amended, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 4 In Favor/ 1 Opposed ( Scowden)/ 0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV- 01- 22- 1996 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV- 01- 22- 1996 Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPROVE BZDV- 01- 22- 1996 subject to and conditioned upon staff recommendations, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV- 01- 22- 1997 Chris Bennett, 1683 Cape Hatteras Trail, felt the property would be significantly denser than the surrounding areas. Joe Lenehan replied that the overall site density was lower than what would be allowed by the ordinance. They originally presented a plan to the Plan Commission with more units and then cut some in order to preserve more of the wooded areas. The practical difficulty was having detached units back to back. Brett Scowden had the Applicant review the proposed layout and buffering. Mr. Scowden asked Staff if the Town provided incentives for rear- loaded garages and Ms. Wertman said there were some incentive standards done through the planning process. Mr. Scowden said that would decrease the amount of space that can be used because of the separation and the added alleys. Mr. Lenehan agreed and said the buffering did as well. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV- 01- 22- 1997 Mr. Scowden mentioned the added amenity and Ms. Wertman said that would go through the DPR process with the APC. Motion: Jeff Humphreys made a motion to APPROVE BZDV- 01- 22- 1997 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Marlon Webb, motion carried 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. 8 of 9 G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None H. NEW BUSINESS 1. None F. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Report From Director Of Development Services Jodi Dickey said Staff and Legal were working on the Rules of Procedure now that there was a complete Board. Jenna Wertman told the members that Staff moving to an online application system so the case number format would be changing. G. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. None H. CITIZENS COMMENTS RELATING TO AGENDA 1. None I. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to ADJOURN, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion passed 5 In Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstained. 7:45 P.M. AlTEST: 9 of 9