Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Greg Morical, Chairman, Al Wopshall, Larry Jones, and John Wolff. Bryan Traylor was absent. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Morical Hello. It is 6:30, so I think we should begin. Welcome to the September 9, 2014 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. The first item on our Agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge. Morical The next item on our Agenda is attendance. DeLong Mr. Morical? Morical Present. DeLong Mr. Wopshall? Wopshall Present. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Present. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present. DeLong Mr. Traylor? Morical The next item on our Agenda is the approval of the August 12, 2014 meeting memorandum which I understand is still being drafted, so we don’t yet have the opportunity to approve that. We will review that for our next Board Meeting. The next item on our Agenda is continuance requests and I believe the Board was e-mailed a continuance request by Mr. Ochs. Mr. Ochs? Ochs Good evening. For the record, my name is Tim Ochs. I’m an attorney at Ice Miller with offices at One American Square, Suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana and I have requested a continuance of Docket #2014-12-DSV involving the Hampshire subdivision. We were contacted last week by Robyn Meyer, an adjacent neighbor, who has raised a series of questions and issues for us. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 We, as the purchaser of the real estate and I think Robyn and her husband and I think some of her neighbors are with them today, would like to get to the bottom of those issues as well, and we certainly can wait 30 days to move forward with this. I think it more important to continue that dialogue, so we’re trying to set up a meeting with Staff and Robyn and her group to try to go through those issues, and we need some time to do that, so we’re requesting a 30-day continuance. Morical Okay, thank you Mr. Ochs. Jones Mr. Ochs, quick question. As part of the packet there was conversation about parking for the proposed model homes. Is there any chance they could prepare something to give us an idea of what they’re thinking about doing? I didn’t really see in the packet we had any kind of – we saw the lots where they were going to put the homes, and I guess some information about the homes, but could they sketch up something if they’re thinking about asking for some sort of off street parking? Ochs We’ll have something prepared for next time dealing with parking. Jones Okay, thank you. Morical One other item of note Mr. Ochs, the proposed findings of fact that you had prepared or Beazer prepared noted in finding of fact #3 that the subdivision will contain approximately 400 homes when complete. Our records show that it was approved at 322. Ochs That’s one of the issues that we’ve got to get to the bottom of. Quite frankly, the whole issue may become moot if that, in fact, is the case and this 30-day continuance gives us an opportunity to jump into that because that’s different than what my clients had been led to believe, and I’ll just leave it at that for now, but it is something that we’ve got to get our hands around, and that 30 days will allow us to do that. Morical Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Ochs? Drake Yes, counsel, do you know, on Parcel 5, are you intending to leave that in the application or are you planning to – Ochs We’ll need to take that out. It is more complicated than I need to delve into, but the simple response is it is currently owned by the school, and I don’t have the authority or the standing, quite frankly, to include that parcel without their consent. It is not necessary for the variance being requested, so we’ll take that out and I suppose that begs the question, should the Board be inclined to grant the continuance and you and I can have this discussion, whether or not we need to re-notice. There will be no new adjacent owners because the school owned the property to the north as is, but if there’s a need to re-notice we certainly can do that. Drake Thank you. Page 2 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Morical Any further questions? Thank you Mr. Ochs. I appreciate that. So we need to consider whether we’re going to grant the continuance request and also, as Mr. Ochs just mentioned, whether we want his client to republish in any form. Drake And just to clarify for the Board the last discussion, when we went through their application, what’s denominated as Parcel 5 we did not have, the deed was not included with the application, so I inquired back through Janice as to where the deed was for Parcel 5 and as Mr. Ochs just confirmed, his client does not have any authority with respect to Parcel 5, so that’s going to need to be pulled out of the application, as well as it would not be in any notice should you elect to re- notice. Morical Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, I’d entertain a motion. Wopshall I can make a motion. I make a motion that we continue Docket #2014-12-DSV for Beazer Homes to be continued to our regular meeting next month. It will be October 14, 2014. Morical And, any comment as to whether they need to republish? Wopshall Okay. I don’t know how much you’ve noticed the people nearby, but it would not need to be, it wouldn’t have to be registered mail, regular mail would be sufficient and a notice in the newspaper noting the difference. Thank you. Morical Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All those in favor please say aye? All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you Mr. Ochs. The next item on our Agenda is Docket 2014-11-DSV for 9275 Hunt Club Road. Is the petitioner here? Please state your name and address for the record. Stokely Hello. Good evening, my name is Randy Stokely. I am the petitioner for the, I’m not sure that the Docket number that you’re giving me, if I’m reading off of the, is it the same, I see a 20EA14-241. Morical Is your address 9275 Hunt Club Road? Stokely It is. Morical Then we’re on the – Page 3 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Stokely We’re good, all right. Just wanted to make sure we were all talking the same language here. The reason for the petition for the variance is to request a waiver of the rear yard setback for this particular property. The current setback, the apparent original setback was 20 feet back when this was zoned through Boone County. This home was built in 1981. Subsequent to that we also requested a reduction in the rear yard setback, so that currently it is 10 feet and that was done through the County, probably six or seven years ago. The most recent, this particular request is waiving it for another 7 feet to accommodate the construction of a small room on the end of the home which would be a laundry room, and I have pictures if you would like or renderings, not renderings, but elevations of the home which you do not have copies of or of the addition. If you would like those I can give those to you. I think the thing that probably is most germane what kind of impact would such a waiver have on any of the neighborhood surrounding that particular property. This property was part of a farm, the Leffel Farm, which has been in the hands of the Leffel family for 50 years I suspect, and it is part of, it was sold off to me back in 1981 this one parcel. The farm now has a driveway going through the farm to accommodate the Leffel family, other members of the Leffel family, actually other members of my family as well. There are four homes, pardon me, five homes back in there. This home or our home, the one we’re requesting the variance on, backs up to this drive and it is a fairly steep drop from the home down to the home I would guess may be 15/18 feet. There could never be another home or any other structure accommodated. Actually there’s not suppose to be any more accommodated in the entire property, but I suppose they could come back, and change that, but suffice it to say there’s nothing going, nobody will be adversely impacted by this change in the setback requirements. My immediate neighbor is James M. Leffel, III. I have a letter from him which basically supports this petition. You all have not seen that letter either, but I’d be happy to make it, give it to you as a matter for the record if you’d like. Morical We would appreciate that. Stokely I guess that would be it. I’ll entertain any questions. Morical Are there any questions for the petitioner? Wopshall I have one question. On your picture, your schematics, showing the property you’re asking for a, you want to be within 3 feet of the property line. This picture shows 5 feet. Stokely Yes, it will be 5 feet, but we’re not exactly sure how it is going to lay out or we figure we better buy a couple of feet just to be safe, so we didn’t have to come back. Wopshall Okay. And if you’re at 3 feet you’ll have some trouble maintaining around your property without going onto the other property possibly. Page 4 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Stokely I would say, the way it falls off I would say, I don’t know what maintaining would be, but it is all woods and would likely remain so. Would we, you know I don’t think there would be an issue there. I hadn’t really – Wopshall But your neighbors are good with that though? Stokely Oh yes and they’re the ones, and Mr. Leffel is the one that has written this letter. Wopshall Thank you. Stokely Yeah, he’s very aware of what we’re doing. Wolff Can you, on those same thoughts, can you describe the elevation? You said that, is the driveway at a higher elevation than your house or is it vice-versa? Stokely You all have the picture there? Yeah, there’s a driveway going, if you’re looking at the house it is immediately east of the house going from Hunt Club Road into the other homes and it is very much below the house. Wolff So your house is elevated above – Stokely Elevated above it, yes. Wolff Okay. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner? Mr. Stokely we’d appreciate a copy of that letter if you wouldn’t mind bringing that up. That would be great. Stokely All right. Morical And are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, I’ll ask for the Staff Report. DeLong Thank you. Staff is recommending support and approval of the petition as filed. Certainly Staff acknowledges the unique shape of the parcel in question and the rear yard setback as identified as a rear yard setback in 2000 to the original variance from Boone County. Again, Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you Wayne. Any questions for Staff? If none, I would entertain a motion. Wopshall Okay, I will make a motion. I move that Docket #2014-11-DSV to permit a reduction of a 10-foot rear setback requirement to 3-foot rear yard setback in the rural equestrian zoning district for the property located at 9275 Hunt Club Road be approved as presented, and based on the proposed findings of fact. Morical Is there a second? Jones I’ll second it. Page 5 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Morical Thank you. Any discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Stokely All right, thank you very much. Morical The next item on our Agenda is Docket #2014-13-DSV for 10364 Bennett Parkway extension Lot 5 of Ripberger Park. Please state your name and address for the record. Metzel Good evening to all of you. My name is Andi Metzel. I’m an attorney at One American Square, Suite 2300, Indianapolis, Indiana 46282 appearing before you on behalf of Marten Transport who is your applicant with regard to 2014-13- DSV. You should all have a packet of materials that we put together to provide to you. Hopefully, that will give you some easier access with regard to visibility of site plans although I understand the challenges of very small print, so I’ll be patient, and we have lots of folks here who can answer questions in the event that I’m not able to. With me today I have Janene Ervin. Janene is with KDC Construction, so she can answer specific questions with regard to construction issues as it relates to the site and the design and the layout and the waivers that we’ve requested. Also, with me is Matt Boone from Civil and Environmental Consultants with regard to the engineering issues. He can also explain some of the topography or other questions you may have and David Farmer from Marten Transport. He is the Operations Manager, so if you have business-specific questions that I am unable to answer, any one of those folks are happy to come up and answer them for you so. With that being said if you’re ready to begin, I am as well. Morical Please do. Metzel Okay. The property that we are discussing is currently zoned I-2. It is a 20+ acre site. It is currently undeveloped. What is being proposed by Marten Transport is about a 34,000 square foot facility to be used for dispatch operations and also for truck repair. It will house about 40 employees and so there are a number of offices that are inside the premises. The campus itself is going to be located on this Lot 5 at Ripberger Business Park and what is interesting about this particular lot is that there is a lot of mature tree growth that is around the perimeter of the property. We intend to keep as much of that mature tree growth as possible and use that for the transitional yards. There are some areas where trees will have to be removed just for ingress and egress. We have some very interesting components of this property that I’ll talk about a little further in the presentation with regard to the waivers that are requested. Just so you understand, anything about Marten Transport, questions you may have, at Tab 2 of your materials there is a variance description and if you’ve not had the opportunity to read that,Marten Transport has been around for a long time, since 1946. This company currently has 2,700+/- employees around the United States. Page 6 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 They have facilities all over the United States and have been in the Indiana location for over 10 years. They are currently out on Georgetown Road, but quite frankly they’re using a building that they didn’t design and they didn’t construct, and it doesn’t really fit their footprint very well, and it doesn’t allow them to grow, and it doesn’t really provide the most attractive campus for their employees. The desire here is for them to make a major investment in Zionsville to become a part of this community. In fact, some of the folks that work for Marten Transport that were key in picking this particular location have already bought homes in Zionsville and moved here, because this is where they want to be, and they are also planning to stay with Martin Transport for a long time, so there is a genuine desire to be in this area and this property despite its challenges. It is the one that they’ve chosen. That being said, you know their headquarters are actually in Wisconsin, but this is, like I said, going to be their primary Indiana location, hence the investment. Moving on to the actual variances that are requested and we’ve asked for two waivers and one of them relates to lighting and the other one to transitional yards, and I’ll address probably the most challenging one first with regard to transitional yards. There is required between the industrial property and adjacent residential uses a 50-foot transitional yard. The waiver we’ve requested is to reduce that transitional yard space to 20 feet in a couple of particular areas around the northwest and north part of the property. Now we’ve designed the site, so that this transitional yard configuration works best because we need a couple of things that are critical to Marten’s operations, parking and maneuverability, and so it is not just the square footage of the building, but you have to be able to maneuver safely on this site. We’ve added additional landscaping, and we’ve definitely read the Staff comments with regard to the transitional yards, and I believe, and of course Staff will speak for themselves, that they do not object to the reduction in the transitional yards, except for one section of the property which is about 317 square feet. It is adjacent to residential property to the west that is undeveloped. I would love to tell you that I have spoken with the owners of that property, but I’ve tried everything I can to find them, and we’ve sent them legal notice. I’ve left a lot of voicemails on a lot of phone numbers that I’m not entirely certain are good, but you know I’m using the wonders of Google and I’ve done everything I can to find these folks and talk to them. Because it is undeveloped I can’t exactly walk up to their door and ring the doorbell, so I don’t believe that anyone is here from that particular owner’s property. If they are I certainly would want the opportunity to speak with them because the whole point here is for Marten to be good neighbors. I don’t know if the message came through clearly and I didn’t have the benefit of being at other meetings with regard to this application and with regard to TAC review and things of that nature, but I don’t know if it came through clearly that they actually are adding landscaping even in that reduced transitional yard area to create an even fuller screening between the industrial property and the residential properties to the west, and so I’m focusing my comments primarily on that 317 square foot line and although this isn’t a great, I could hand you this if you want to pass it down, but the particular area we’re talking about is just to the north of the property, that little line right up there. Page 7 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 And so I’ve spoken with the Marten folks and even though we haven’t heard from any neighbors, the concept is that we definitely will add the additional landscaping that is planned to supplement what is already there, that is a lot of vegetation and mature tree growth, but supplement it, so that it is really a lot of screening and additionally to make sure that any lighting that is provided on the property is blocked, so that it only shines onto the property and lastly, we have not had the opportunity to speak about this, but I have been speaking with the Marten folks tonight now that we’ve had the benefit of all being in the same town at the same time, and we’re willing to put a fence on the property on that 317 square foot piece of property to further block that residential area if that is something that Staff would support and if it would help them in their decision making to hopefully also allow this particular waiver of the transitional yard area. The fence materials we’re open to suggestion. We have used other fences, you know white, sort of plastic material, but it looks like a white solid fence, before. We’ve used wood. We’ve used a lot of different products on different properties. Interestingly enough I think if you look at that Tab 2, page 2 I put two photographs in there just for your benefit, so you could see the most recent type of construction that Marten is building in other communities which is strikingly similar to what they plan here, and so one of those is in Tucker, Georgia. The other one Desoto, Texas, very clean lines for that type of building, and they maintain their property very well and want to create an inviting campus because they want their employees to be happy. So that being said, those are the comments I have at the moment with regard to the transitional yard area. Now the hardship that is created from this particular property is we have the whole full house of challenges. We have wetlands. We have topography changes. We have existing ponds that we can’t touch, and we have the need to add ponds, so that we have areas for drainage and runoff. If we could just as easily say oh we’ll just shift the property south, it would be great to say that. The investment would be extraordinary. There would really be not a lot of purpose to do that because you always sacrifice something and it is not just about sacrificing 12 parking spaces, but it is also encroaching on that wetland area, so we have to move or mitigate. It is about the change in topography, so how do we address those issues which is going to be, you know, moving dirt is really pricey. It is not just about cost, we really need that new pond on this property because we can’t touch the other one, so those are some of the challenges that are created, and our engineering folks can answer more questions if you have them, but in the interest of time I want to move on to lighting. The lighting waiver that is requested is to allow Marten Transport to actually utilize LED lighting on the property. Just so everyone is aware, LED lighting is not cheaper. By all means it is not as if we are bargain shopping for cheaper options here. The LED lighting is actually much more expensive, but overall the long-term investment does hopefully produce some savings, and it also is more environmentally sound. LED lighting is easier for us to direct the lighting, so that it is on the property itself and so that it doesn’t have that sky or night pollution as we hear of and bleed onto other properties. So it is a further way that we can actually protect the residential properties to the west and the southwest. Keeping with this concept of reaching out to neighbors, I just want you all to know that I did speak with Bill Ripberger who is the property owner to the north. Page 8 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 I did provide him with a copy of the plans that we submitted to each of you, so he has these materials that are in your book. I did not hear back from him, so I am unaware of whether he is here tonight. I did try to ask around before we started to see who’s here. Additionally, I spoke with Mr. John Dattilo who is here in the audience on behalf of BHI Senior Living and Baptist Homes who owns the property immediately to the south and when I found out he had counsel, Mr. Tim Ochs, who is also here I spoke with Mr. Ochs and we’ve actually had a meeting of the minds just with regard to some additional screening on the southern property line that is located immediately near our pond and the wetland areas and so Mr. Ochs proposed some language to me today with regard to a commitment that Martin Transport is willing to enter into to make sure that we provide additional screening on that southern area, and the concern is really not about the lighting on the property itself. It is about truck traffic exiting the property in the evening hours, so if and when the day comes that they do develop that property we want to make sure that we’re not encroaching on the neighbors quiet, useful, enjoyment of that property. So we have reached that commitment. We literally are just in the process of drafting and Mr. Ochs came up with some very good language this afternoon. I haven’t even had the opportunity to share that with Staff, but I wanted to share it with you because in keeping with trying to be good neighbors this is something that we’re definitely willing to do to accommodate their concerns. So that being said, with regard to the lighting I just think you know I can compare LED for you to Halide light. I don’t think it is the most riveting conversation, but – Morical No, thank you. Unless anybody else wants to hear it. Metzel It is not exactly riveting information, but it is helpful and so that’s what our proposal is. We would hope to have Staff support for doing that. I apologize for the last minute nature of some additional accommodations, but we think that it may give some additional solutions, so that we can all try to fit this very odd puzzle shaped property into a useable space that will work for Marten for the long haul. Morical Ms. Metzel, a couple of questions for you. Metzel Certainly. Morical So in Tab #4 there is a drawing that shows what the developed area would be or parking lot area would be if we did not grant the variance request for the reduced buffer to the north and to the west. Metzel Correct. Morical And it talks about kind of shifting the pavement line a little bit to the east and a reduction in about 12 parking spots. If we granted the variance to the north, but did not grant the variance to the northwest, what would that cause in terms of a reduction in parking? Page 9 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Metzel Approximately, well we can count them, but what I’ve been told even from engineers trying to reconfigure, it would it’d be a reduction of 12 truck spaces, not 12 spaces. So those are pretty large. Morical So if you look at your drawing on the northern boundary? Metzel Yes sir. Morical With the red line and you assume that red line is to your proposed line, there would be two truck spots there, right? Metzel At the right corner, yes that is correct. Morical Okay, so presumably if we granted the variance to the north, but didn’t grant the variance to the west, it would be, you’d have more, you’d loose less than 12. Metzel More likely 10, right. I’m not an accountant, I’m a lawyer. Morical No, I know. Metzel Okay. Morical I know Ms. Metzel, I know. I share your fate. Is there something that your client would be willing to accept that would be less than a 50 foot wide setback on the northwest? Metzel I would defer to Janene Ervin who is with KDC Construction, if she has a comment with regard to that. I know that we’ve been working very hard on trying to figure out if it is possible to shift, and when we shift to the east, we have a lot of vegetation and area that is designated, I believe, for wildlife purposes and so it actually cannot be touched, so we have to be careful how far east we go. Morical I’m mindful of your red line that you’ve already drawn on your map showing that you can go east a little bit, I’m just wondering to what extent that buys you some ability to go not as far west. Metzel Sure, okay, certainly. Morical Please state your name and address for the record. Irvin Janene Ervin with KDC Construction and our address is 4400 West 109th Street in Overland Park, Kansas. Actually if we could be accommodated the variance on the north we could, we would not lose any parking spaces even if we didn’t gain the variance to the west, so the most important thing there is the maneuverability to come around those aisles. What you’re looking at is kind of a drive aisle from the east to the west, so if we could maintain that, that would probably be our most important feature of the parking. Morical You mean the northern? Page 10 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Ervin It is northern. Did I misstate that? Morical No, no. Ervin If we could, you made a comment if it was granted to the north, but not to the west, it would impact us much less than not getting the variance on the north. Morical Okay. So assume the variance on the north were granted, but the one on the west is there, do you need the one on the west if the one to the north is granted? Ervin Well we could shift the property a little bit to the east to accommodate maybe losing that footage on the west, but we don’t have any flexibility north and south is what I was kind of saying. We do, however, have a pretty stiff grade change as we start to go towards these, really it drops way off into a creek which runs along Bennett Parkway, and we also have a soils report that shows that those soils are very saturated. I mean that’s like working in – Morical So, Ms. Ervin the red line that is in tab #4 that is drawn to be the new edge of the pavement with the 50 foot buffer is constructing to that line a problem? Does it cost meaningfully more? Does it go to the soils that you’re concerned with or is that constructible? Irvin It is constructible at a cost. Morical Well everything – Ervin It is – Morical You know, significant cost? We’re trying to weigh – Ervin Right, right and I’m, we have a soils report of a boring that was done over there that says that that soil is going to be very difficult to work in. That’s why we avoided trying to go to the east of the property, so it is workable at a cost. I mean there will be some, we’ll have to do – Morical Soil stabilization and stuff. Ervin Yes. Morical Okay, so really the red line that you show in tab #4 to the east is maybe not as doable as the proposed actual outline. Is that – Ervin I’m not sure I understand the question. Morical So if you had to build what it is that you’ve proposed with the redline behind tab #4, that’s meaningfully more expensive than your suggested and requested outline? Page 11 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Ervin Correct. That’s where the grade change starts to happen and that’s timber in there and more expensive to develop because there would be a lot of timber that would need to be removed to continue to work over to the east side of the property. Morical And if you’ve noticed our logo we like trees, so we value trees, so you understand. Metzel In the interest, I’m sorry Janene, I don’t mean to interrupt, but in the interest of giving maybe additional enlightenment with regard to that east side property line, Matt Boone from the engineering group is to come up here to enlighten us and let me understand and he can enlighten you as well with regard to the reduction of the setback on the west side of the property, and I think your question originally was if it was something less than the or a little bit greater than the 20 feet requested would that make a significant difference, and according to Mr. Boone who has the engineering experience, yes. The answer is yes, and he can tell you about how much. Whether that’s a 10 foot, so if we were asking for 30 feet as opposed to 20 it would make a significant difference for Martin with regard to the cost and everything else because they have to take out less of those trees and deal with less of those soil issues to the west so. Morical And again, the question is, assuming we were to grant the variance to the north, so you’d get that full area that you’ve requested to the north, but would it be possible to grant you something less than requested to the northwest? Boone Matt Boone with Civil and Environmental Consultants, 530 East Ohio Street, Suite G, Indianapolis, Indiana. Basically, what we had talked about was the north. If we were granted that variance that would result in zero spaces; however, if we were to shift all the way 50 feet, which would be 30 feet offset of what we’re showing, we would get a problem with the drive aisle. If you look at the drive aisle on the west side of the building going north, in order to meet those clearances for maneuverability of the trucks we would have to remove a couple of spaces there. It would probably be about three spaces in order to get the 90 foot clearance that we need around the building. As we go east, as we talked about where the topography starts to change, if we could maybe compromise between the 20 feet and 50 feet and go somewhere, maybe variance to 30 feet or 35 feet, I think we can get that edge of pavement where it doesn’t fall into, where it starts to fall off grade and the clearing and grubbing would be more of a concern than the adverse soil conditions. Morical Thank you, Mr. Boone. Jones Mr. President, could I make, there’s one individual that approached us about commenting on a hearing tonight, but I don’t think they’re here anymore are they? Okay I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t someone with some comment about this project here before we started going back and forth, but it doesn’t sound like there’s anybody here, so carry on. Morical Certainly a good question. I’ve got one further question for you Ms. Metzel. Page 12 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Metzel Certainly. Morical On the commitment that you and Mr. Ochs were talking about? Metzel Yes. Morical Is that ready to present to the Board or is that something you’re still working on and want to present to Staff. Metzel I can certainly read it or I can provide you with my copy if that’s helpful. Probably more helpful to give it to you. Morical If you give it, we’ll give it back. Metzel Actually I’ll give you two things. I’ll give you the e-mail from Mr. Ochs to me with regard to the language that is stated and also he was kind enough to draw in this area that was the area of concern for them, so that we can all be on the same page, so – Morical And your client is willing to accept the language that’s in the e-mail? Metzel Yes, we are. Morical Ok, thank you. Metzel And if I could approach I would – Morical No, that’s, yeah please approach. Metzel Thanks. Morical Okay, so just to make sure I’m clear, you guys, your client, Ms. Metzel, is willing to consider, if we were to grant the variance to the north, taking the setback on the northwest side from the proposed 20 feet to 30 or 35 feet? Metzel Yes. Morical Is there, you probably prefer 30? Metzel We would probably prefer 30. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner? Wopshall I have a question. We keep talking about north to northwest, so which is it. Is it north? Is it west or is it – Metzel There are two. Page 13 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Morical There are two. There is north, the pure north which boundaries the Ripberger piece of property. Metzel Correct. Morical And then the northwest portion which boundaries the residential part. Wopshall That’s the 267 foot portion correct? Metzel It is 300 and, yeah 50, yeah. Morical Correct, yeah that’s correct. Wopshall And that really is a straight line north and south, so it is directly west. Morical Yeah. Wopshall Part of, but the line. Metzel Yes. Morical This is all on the record. Wolff For clarification sake, the intent of the property, I’ve got a little bit of experience in this world, but is it 53-foot trailers that will be on the property? Metzel I’m seeing Mr. Farmer nodding his head, who is our Operations Manager, so I would take that as a yes. Wopshall What if we would continue this hearing for a month or two and you could try to re-contact the owner of the property on the west. Then maybe you could get your full variance. Would you want to consider that? Metzel I think that we would prefer moving forward just because we are anxious to turn dirt and hopefully become a part of this community. The longer we wait we run into winter months and then we actually lose half a year because of the construction delays, so I genuinely would have loved to have talked to them. I always invite comment from neighbors. Other than sending them more snail mail, letters, which no one is responding to I don’t know how else I would find these folks, so I feel like a stalker at some point, right. But I did try and I tried a lot of different efforts and angles, but I’m just not hearing anything. Jones I’ve got a couple of questions. One the LED lighting thing is really just because some of our dated provisions, and code that we didn’t really ever mention it, is that correct? We don’t really have a specific objection to LED? Page 14 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 DeLong In the ordinance in the I-2 it specifically says metal halide lighting the sole choice of the Town in the industrial district, but as noted in the Staff Report in the PUD, which the Town owns just to the north, it is not specific to lighting, so in fact LED is something that the Town could enjoy and this property could not. I would suspect that in the near future we’ll be updating our ordinances to reflect more modern standards. Jones That’s fine. And it sounds like with looking at the lighting plan and the way it operates and just trying to give the neighbor directly to the west that 267 foot portion, I guess I’d like to see more setback there. Even though we can’t find the guy, based on the way the lightings laid out, the way the trucks will run in and out that property line would be more affected. To the north, do we know what the operation is to the north? I mean the miracle of the satellite is I can see there’s some sort of barns and other equipment. Metzel Yeah, that property is, to my knowledge. used by Ripberger Construction and it is probably, all the aerials that I could find, it looks like it’s been there for quite some time and so although it is technically zoned residential, it has been construction based use for a long time. Like I said, I did reach out to them. I didn’t hear any comments. I don’t know if it is a mitigating factor for you all that we would be willing to include screening on that side of the property. I mean we could include screening, a fence on that side of the property in addition to the landscaping that we’ve intended and reduce the setback to 30 feet if those combination of things make a difference. I’m not sure for you, but we’re definitely willing to do that and entertain that. Jones So to finish my initial comment, I think it is more important that there be more setback on what I call that 267 foot west side than really on the north side. Just the combination of lighting and I think that has less effect on your guys, you know, you might lose a space if you have to shift the lot somewhat. The other comment you made was about fencing and I’m assuming, I’m under Section 7, there’s an X line that goes around the parking lot, so you are fencing the truck lot, correct? So there will be some sort of security fencing around the truck parking areas? Metzel Yes, 6-foot chain link is what I was just told. Jones Okay. So some of that will run along the property line, some of it will be closer to the actual parking areas? Metzel Correct. Jones And some of it is around the proposed pond? Metzel Correct. Jones So is there any chance you could make some sort of recommendation along that west line and then we possibly leave the north property line alone at 20 foot? Page 15 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Wolff Along those thoughts, the only way to access the property, the residential property to the west as I drove by it, I believe, was from the north, correct? Morical As it currently stands, I believe that’s correct. Wolff Okay. And so your thought was, perhaps, if we cheat a little to the north and then reduce the potential variance to the west it might make it a little more accommodating to that property owner who isn’t represented. Jones Correct. Who hasn’t bothered to show up. Wolff Regardless of that, I still think we need to respect the property. Jones Yeah, correct. Morical One further question for you Ms. Metzel, the commitment that you and Mr. Ochs have discussed between your two clients, is that something you’re interested in having us put in the record or is that something you’re going to deal with privately between your two clients? Could you state that for the record please? Metzel Yes, I think Mr. Ochs has stated that they would like a commitment on the standard form used by this Board and that should not be a problem for us. Morical Okay, thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner? Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Metzel If I could make a final comment, I apologize. Morical No, that’s fine. Metzel Just because we have talked about this waiver on the setback issue in different pieces, one with regard to the north property line and one with regard to the west and then we have the lighting waiver as well, I obviously defer to your judgment, but we want to do this project, and if it is not palatable for this Board to approve all of those commitments, excuse me all of those waivers with regard to, I take it as three really, west side, north side, and lighting. I don’t know if you could vote separately on those and that may be helpful as opposed to putting them altogether or if that just overcomplicates issues. Morical You know what, that would be my intent that we vote on each one independently. Metzel Thank you. Morical Thank you. Staff Report please. DeLong Thank you. The discussion this evening has been very helpful and provides additional information for you and the Staff’s recommendations are based upon this presentation, is the substance of this presentation. Staff certainly is supportive of the LED lighting. Page 16 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Staff is supportive of the reduced setback along the north related to the relationship with the Ripberger property and the unknown is the property to the west, which is the undeveloped residential lot. Certainly the ordinance provides for dual types of buffering. One is the distance buffering, which is the 50-foot dimension and the second item is the type C landscaping that’s required along that buffer yard. The buffer yard in question is allowed to enjoy preservation in perpetuity, of course, of the existing established landscaping and there are points that are earned related to that preservation, and so the points that are provided and indicated on Tab 4, and I have to say the landscaping plan is probably one of the better ones we have seen that provides a lot of information for the Plan Commission and the BZA now, the Plan Commission next week to look at, but it details very clearly the points that are earned versus the points that they are exceeding and something we want to recognize, that they are providing more plantings than what are required by ordinance, the ordinance unit value required is 10.68. The unit value provided is 10.8, so they are exceeding, so we want to give credit for that, but be that as it may, the buffer yard is equally about screening, as about noise control, visual screening, and dealing with the outdoor operations if you will. Certainly, there are times where over the road facilities such as this have different size pieces of equipment that are parked in different places. Sometimes those are yokes, sometimes those are, you know, short boxes. If these are all 53-foot long that’s the only size Marten has, I do have a question – Metzel Mr. Farmer is shaking his head, yes, 53. DeLong Okay. Certainly you would, Staff would encourage this area to be the parking area of last resort if you will. Certainly a parking area that could be utilized for apparatus and other types of equipment, yard trucks that move things around, smaller items that may not demand such a large deep parking space, but that doesn’t seem to be an option to certainly consider. Certainly don’t discourage you from considering this as three different conversations and three different votes. Certainly Staff encourages the, any additional setback that can be provided. There actually is a point value if a solid fence is provided, be it a vinyl or wood type fence. Certainly Staff is always concerned about maintenance of that type of fence or any fence, metal as well, I’m just, with this type of yard that’s something that’s ongoing cost as it may get weathered and/or hit as those things go, but again Staff stands by its suggestions in the Staff Report, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you very much. Any questions for Staff? If none, I would suggest we move forward to the consideration of the variance request to the north. Didn’t I already ask for remonstrators? I did. Ms. Metzel didn’t leave though. She stayed at the podium. Metzel I apologize. Page 17 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Morical But yes, I asked and nobody came and then we did the Staff Report and, thank you, Wayne, that was very helpful. Okay, so I suggest we first consider the proposed variance on the northern part of the property. Any discussion as it relates to that? Wolff The amount of variance that is being requested, for the northern part of the property, is 20 feet? Morical To take it from 50 feet to 20 feet. I would entertain a motion. Wolff I will make a motion or at least I will attempt to. I move that on Docket #2014- 13-DSV, the Design Standards Variance, in the urban general industrial zoning district to provide for a minimum 20-foot transitional yard for the northern property line be approved based on the finding and based upon the Staff Report and presentation. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wopshall I’ll second. Morical Any discussion? All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay I would suggest we now consider the request for the variance as it relates to the western line. Wolff And I guess my comment there was the consensus from, the consensus was that the 20 feet was ideal, but not necessary. Morical And if Ms. Metzel, Marten was prepared to accept 30 feet? Metzel Yes. Wolff In addition, I ask the Board Members do we have any thoughts on a fence along that property? Morical I hesitate to ask them to put in a fence as a requirement when the neighbor hasn’t shown up and expressed a concern, so perhaps if Marten would be willing to consider putting in fence if it were requested by the neighbor at the continued residential use. Then you don’t have to incur that experience unless it is important to them. Metzel That’s agreeable to us. Jones Well, I want to confirm something. Currently there is a fence shown along the property line along the west side. Metzel But it is a 6 foot chain link. Page 18 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Jones Correct. So what we’re talking about is some type of solid fencing? Metzel That is correct. Morical That is a good clarification, thank you. Jones I got to hit one, one of these days. Morical You hit that one solid. Jones There we go. Morical Any further discussion? Jones And I guess my general thought on that is that the added buffer provides for a little higher, taller, denser tree growth which is going to do more to block lighting and sound than any kind of solid fencing would so. Morical And I am also mindful that the petitioner has used every effort available to try to contact the neighbor and without a response. We don’t know whether that’s because they’re okay with this or they’ve got a concern, but everybody has a responsibility to participate in this process and that’s why we have the notice, so I think we need to consider the fact that somebody has not responded. Though we still obviously need to keep in mind, you know, the interest of the code and zoning and all that. Okay, any further discussion? If none, I would entertain a motion. Wopshall Before the motion, there are, the western property line is more than this 317 feet long. That is just a portion of the western side. Morical Al, I would like to refer to that as the northwest portion. And according to the diagram on Tab 4 it is 267.53 feet. Wopshall Okay, but there is also another western portion to the south of that. Metzel I can probably clarify that for you. The remaining western property line does not require any waiver of the setback requirement because or the transitional yard requirement, excuse me, because they’ve already provided for that. You’ve got wetlands and pond and other things there and because the way that the entrance has to be configured it is the only place to get in and out of the property. You actually already have that extra 50 feet there. Wopshall Thank you. Jones Shall we make a motion? Morical Please. Page 19 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Jones I move that Docket #2014-13-DSV, Design Standards Variance in the urban I-2 general industrial zoning district to provide for a minimum 30 foot transitional yard for the northern 267.53 feet of the west property line be approved based on the findings and based upon the Staff Report and presentation. Is that right? Did I get that or no? Morical Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical Would you be open to amending your motion to include the 6 foot solid fence if requested by the neighboring property owner? Jones Once again, how much of the property line are we going to address, the same area? Morical 267.53 feet. Jones I’d amend my motion to include the solid fencing along the northern 267 feet of the west property line. Morical If requested by the – Jones If requested by the adjoining property owner. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical Any further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. So the last variance request in front of us relates to the lighting. Drake And I believe we also need to address – Morical The commitment. That’s right. And we could wrap the commitment up with this lighting one if you would like. Any discussion on the variance? Wolff I’m sorry Morical We can add that to the motion. Wolff To the lighting motion? Morical Correct, yes. Page 20 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Wolff Can we please review that commitment verbally? What was the commitment? Metzel I gave you my copy, so I apologize I can gladly – Wolff How good are your eyes? Metzel Not that good. I actually have a copy from Mr. Ochs. I’d be happy to read that for you if you’d like me to. Morical I think we’re fine, thank you. Metzel Okay. Morical But you may want to follow along as we read it. We could just reference it, guys. Wolff Okay. We’re okay. Morical For Counsel. Wolff Then I will make a motion. Morical Okay, thank you. Wolff I move that Docket #2014-13-DSV, Design Standards Variance, in the urban general industrial zoning district to provide the use of LED lighting within Lot 5 be approved based upon the Staff Report and the findings, in addition to honoring the commitment with BHI Senior Living for adjusting the landscaping on the southern portion of the property to meet the requirements. Morical Is there a second? Wopshall I second. Morical Can we amend that motion to specifically reference the language that’s in the e- mail that’s been presented to us tonight? Wolff Yes. Drake I would also recommend you amend it to note that petitioner has agreed to the language that’s in our standard form for commitments and that that language from Mr. Ochs will be incorporated into that form for recording. Morical Thank you, Counsel. Are you willing to amend your motion? Wolff I am willing to amend my motion. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wopshall Second. Page 21 of 22 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals September 9, 2014 Morical Any discussion? All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Metzel Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Morical Thank you Ms. Metzel. Metzel Thank you. Morical Good luck, Marten. Drake Mr. Chair, since the proposed findings do not reflect the actions taken tonight, your final action will need to be at next month’s meeting when you approve the actual written findings of fact on all these matters. Morical Thank you, Counsel. Seeing no other business in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals, this meeting is hereby adjourned. Page 22 of 22