The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, May 17, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
In attendance were Mr. Monnett, Mr. Blevins, Mr. Shrum, Mr. Haase and Mr. Matrana.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Monnett made a motion to approve the April 19, 2004 minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals as submitted. Second by Mr. Shrum. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public
Hearings. The first item of business tonight is BZA-04-011, Campfield Citgo.
Mr. Higbee said I’m not sure if there is anybody in the audience here
for this tonight. I haven’t seen the petitioner. However, you will probably all remember from multiple visits in the past that the Citgo out across the street from the Plainfield Plaza has gone out of business. When they were approved a few years back, they had a typical landscape plan with perimeter plantings, etc. On the south side of the street between them and the residential neighborhood to the south there was a row of landscaping between the site and the street that has been continually dying out. Our ordinance requires that when landscape dies, it has to be replaced. So, Staff was going out there saying you need to replace that landscaping. Finally, it came to head with a visit to the Plan Commission and it was determined that they should file a variance because there is probably an issue with how close that area is to the street and the difficulty with the landscaping surviving there. The petitioner recently filed a variance. The BZA waived the fee on that particular variance because of the number of times that the petitioner had to come in here and that is where we are.
Mr. Shrum asked, is the landscaping on the south side of the fence?
Mr. Higbee said correct. You can still see a few of the shrubs that
did survive but most of them have died out. There is a plan in your packet that actually shows where the landscaping that was approved was supposed to be. I think the snow in the wintertime probably gets piled up right in that area too and that is a big part of the issue.
Mr. Monnett asked, since the petitioner is not here, what are the
options?
Mr. Higbee said I was discussing before the hearing with a couple of
the BZA members that with the petitioner not here we can’t be absolutely certain that he did the certified mailing to the surrounding property owners that is required.
Mr. Monnett asked, you don’t have anything from him?
Mr. Higbee said we don’t have that no so probably some of the options
would be to grant the variance subject to him providing that information within a few days. You could continue it or you could dismiss it because he is not here or to deny it, of course, which is always an option.
Mr. Matrana asked, how long ago did he file this variance request?
Mr. Higbee said it wasn’t very long ago, probably 30-45 days ago.
Mr. Matrana said so it was fairly recently.
Mr. Higbee said yes.
Mr. Shrum asked, what is the status of the property at the present time do you know?
Mr. Higbee said it is vacant. It has some grass that has been growing
up that I noticed. A “for sale” sign is on it.
Mr. Shrum said it is my opinion that as long as the landscaping is at
its present position we will always be having trouble with it and it will always die.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to
speak on this variance request? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this meeting and open it up to the board for discussion on what we should do about the plants that won’t grow. I see that Mr. Campfield is not here tonight so we could continue it or make a motion on what probably should happen if he were here.
Mr. Haase said if he were here, I would make a motion to approve BZA-
04-011 subject to the following condition:
That the Planning Director be able to get proof of notification
of the certified mailings from Mr. Campfield within a 30-day
period.
Second by Mr. Shrum. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Shrum – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the next petition before the board is BZA-04-012,
Garlon Bingham concerning a garage.
Mr. Higbee said this is a residential area with a proposed residential garage, 24’ x 24’, detached garage that is being proposed. It would be added to where there is already an existing home and garage. As you know, from Article 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance it talks about limiting the area in the number of accessory structures. There has been a limitation in the ordinance for quite awhile that says that all of the accessory structures cannot exceed 50% of the living area of the home. That includes the attached garage. I gave you some square footages in your report. With the proposed 24’ x 24’ garage the total accessory space would be 1,170 square feet and the finished floor area of the structure was 1,287 square feet. So, you can see that it is upwards of 90%. So, that is a substantial variance of what is in our ordinance today. However, the ordinance committee that you have all heard about has done some major updating of our Zoning Ordinance and actually has gone through the first reading at the last Town Council meeting. There were some changes to Article 4.1 among others and one of the changes was to change that 50% limitation to instead of 50% of the total living area or what we call finished floor area you can equal the finished floor area, you can’t exceed it. Staff has been calling that 99% rule. It is really a 100% rule typically so it allows people to have more storage space. We have noticed from time to time that the 50% limit was placing an unreasonable constraint on people. As I said, that has gone through the first reading. It will probably go through the second and third reading in the coming weeks. If that is indeed adopted, this would comply with that proposed ordinance change. You have the plot plans in your packet and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mr. Haase said probably the biggest question I would have is I’m
looking at this sketch that came in the packet and I don’t see a second driveway leading to this 24’ x 24’ garage. Would they be allowed to have two driveway entrances?
Mr. Higbee said only if they got an access permit from the Engineering Department. That issue hadn’t even come up as an item for discussion yet so you might want to ask them what they are planning to do.
Mr. Haase asked, could they get one?
Mr. Higbee said if it meets the Access Control Ordinance, which is
administered by the Town Engineer. I’m not sure he would have an issue with it or not.
Mr. Haase said that is kind of the answer I was looking for.
Ms. Sandra Bingham at 1628 Oliver Ave. said we would just like to
request to build a two-car detached garage. As far as the driveway, what we had planned on doing with the approval is come in off one driveway and then concrete it over to the other garage. That is what we had planned on doing.
Mr. Matrana asked, when you say the other garage, will you then have
two garages on your property?
Ms. Bingham said we have the attached garage to the house and then we
would have the detached. We would take the driveway off the detached but we would have one entrance. It is mainly going to be used for a motorcycle but that is what it would be used for mainly. My husband apologizes for not being here but he got called out at four o’clock in the morning. We both work for Cinergy and he got sent to Gallagher because they were having trouble with a substation.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would have a
comment either for or against the Garlon Bingham garage issue? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to the board for discussion and a possible motion.
Mr. Monnett made a motion to approve BZA-04-012 subject to the
following condition:
Substantial compliance with the plot plan file dated April 15,
2004.
Second by Mr. Blevins. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Shrum – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the next matter before the board is BZA-04-013,
Habitat for Humanity.
Mr. Higbee said you are probably all aware that Habitat for Humanity
has already built one home up on North Vine Street. Nearby on the corner of North and Vine is another home that is being proposed. When the building department received the permit, they let me know and let the petitioner’s representative know that the setback wasn’t being met along North Street. There is a requirement on a setback of 30 feet on all local streets. This being a corner lot you would have to have that setback on both sides. In exchange for that the ordinance actually gives you a more liberal treatment of the rear yard. However, what they were proposing I think was a 23.67-foot setbacks. So, it is six or seven feet shy what the ordinance requires. After some pictures that have been provided, which you have copies of aerials there, and actually visiting the site Staff noticed that quite a few homes along the road are less than 30 feet. In fact, there are a lot less than 30 feet in many cases. However, the way that our ordinance is written it says if the homes on the same block face are not less than 30 feet, you cannot use the exemption in our ordinance that allows you to match the existing setbacks. It just so happens that all of the homes nearby, and there are quite a few of them that are less than 30 feet, are on the other side of the road. Or they are on the next block face down. And then as you go to the north, you have a block face that isn’t completely developed. So, the way the ordinance was written it wasn’t helping the petitioner in this particular case so they filed the variance request. I think what is being requested would match the surrounding development.
Mr. Carlucci asked, were you good on Vine Street but not North Street?
Mr. Higbee said right. One of the two setbacks were met but North
Street wasn’t.
Mr. Carlucci said because the only building on there is a garage. That garage isn’t on the street is it?
Mr. Matrana said it is close.
Mr. Shrum said this is a big improvement for the area.
Mr. Craig Brighten said I’m the Executive Director for Habitat for
Humanity in Hendricks County. Our offices are located at 360 N. SR267 in Avon. You have the aerials and also in your packet you will see a photograph of the home that we are proposing. This was a home that we built last year in Brownsburg. We would like to propose this home on this corner lot specifically. The three lots that we own there we are trying to conform with the intent of the zoning of redeveloping this area and giving it an aesthetic and architectural appeal. Not by simply putting the same exact home as a cookie cutter form, etc. So, we are trying to address that issue in all three homes that we have proposed to put there not only in their design but also in their position. This home that we are proposing for the corner on that block is setback 45 feet from Vine Street, which is farther than
required basically for the aesthetics of not lining up with everything on the front. So, there are some issues that we are trying to address here at the same time in making this area a very attractive area as well. I don’t have a lot really to say that Mr. Higbee hasn’t already said but I would be glad to answer in questions that you have.
Mr. Monnett said you do good work and have a good track record
especially with the aesthetic value too and structurally. The landscaping and everything has always been really nice from the ones that I have seen. Mr. Brighten said I have an actual photograph of the home that we built last year on the property. You can get an idea of what the streetscape will look like.
Mr. Higbee said one of the things that Staff likes to talk about is our new residential guidelines and how these Habitat homes actually come very very close to all of the guidelines that we have been trying to get other developers to meet. From time to time I have used that as an example when they say that they find those guidelines are prohibitive. We say somehow Habitat for Humanity seems to be able to do it so why don’t you take a drive up North Vine Street?
Mr. Brighten said one of the other things that we are trying to
accomplish there is this is the smallest footprint of a design that we have. Going to a two-story actually cost us a little more money but having the constraints on that property, as I stated in the letter of intent, the 30 foot setback on the site on a 66 foot lot would lend your design to a long narrow design, which is something that we want to avoid. As somebody said in Habitat, if you will take the tongue off of it, we will buy it. So, that is what we are trying, and Habitat also, to get away from that image as well.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to
step forward and say anything either for or against the house built by Habitat for Humanity? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to the board for a possible motion.
Mr. Monnett made a motion to approve BZA-04-013 subject to the
following condition:
Substantial compliance with the plot plan file dated April 15,
2004.
Second by Mr. Haase. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Shrum – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Haase made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Shrum. Motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned.
_______________________________
Mr. Rick Matrana, President
