metropolitan board of zoning appeals...2019-uv3-002 five locations between 308 west morris and 101...

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DIVISION III

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ROOM

2nd Floor City-County Building 1:00 p.m.

STAFF REPORTS FOR MARCH 19, 2019

These reports do not in any way commit the Board

to approve or disapprove any petition filed before it.

DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING

CURRENT PLANNING SECTION PETITION NO. PETITION ADDRESS AND LOCATION PAGE NO.

EXPEDITED PETITIONS:

2019-AP3-001 8902 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET PERRY TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 23

3

2019-UV3-001 5900, 5946, 5950 AND 5954 WEST MINNESOTA STREET WAYNE TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 22

13

2019-UV3-002 FIVE LOCATIONS BETWEEN 308 WEST MORRIS AND 101 EAST MORRIS; FOUR LOCATIONS BETWEEN 1434 AND 1718 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET; AND ONE LOCATION NEAR 702 RUSSELL AVENUE CENTER TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 16

22

CONTINUED PETITIONS:

2018-DV3-055** 245 NORTH DELAWARE STREET CENTER TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 11

27

2018-DV3-056** (AMENDED)

3615 WHITE CEDAR COURT WAYNE TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 11

28

2018-DV3-057 (AMENDED)

4103 (4119-PARCEL) SOUTH LYNHURST DRIVE DECATUR TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 22

29

NEW PETITIONS:

2

2019-DV3-003 5402 LOBO DRIVE FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 18

38

2019-DV3-005 1538 RINGGOLD AVENUE CENTER TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 21

50


59


69

2019-DV3-008 (AMENDED)

7307 HOLLIDAY DRIVE WEST WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, COUNCIL DISTRICT 2

79

* Automatic Continuance ** Continuance Requested *** Withdrawn or Dismissal

3

STAFF REPORT

Department of Metropolitan Development Division of Planning

Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-AP3-001 Address: 8902 South Meridian Street (approximate address) Location: Perry Township, Council District #23 Zoning: C-3 Petitioner: Village Plaza Properties LLC, by Adam M. Law Request: Waiver of the refiling rule to permit the filing of a variance of use and

development standards variance petition within 12 months of the denial of 2018-UV3-018 on September 18, 2018.

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this request. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The following issues were considered in formulating the recommendation: LAND USE EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE C-3 Metro Retail SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE North C-1 Medical Clinic South C-3 Retail East C-S Retail West D-4 Single-Family Dwellings LAND USE PLAN The Perry Township Comprehensive Plan (2018) recommends

community commercial development.

The 4.08-acre site is developed with multiple commercial buildings that have been occupied by various commercial-retail uses. The parcel is an out-lot along County Line Road and located at the northwest corner of the intersection of County Line Road and Meridian Street.

The parcels to the north are zoned C-1, the parcel to the east is zoned C-3, and the parcels to the west are zoned D-4. The properties to the south are also zoned C-3 and are part of the commercial center. Across County Line Road is Johnson County and the uses appear to be community commercial and institutional uses.

(Continued)

4

STAFF REPORT 2019-AP3-001 (Continued) DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

A previous variance, 2018-UV3-018, requested to use a tenant space within a different building on the property for a catering business with meat smokers located to the west of the site. This petition was denied.

The current request is to utilize a different structure on the site, and based on the information provided is wholly unrelated to the tenant space that had requested a catering business with meat smokers.

REFILING FOLLOWING ADVERSE DECISION

The Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure prohibit the filing of another variance of use or development standards petition on the same parcel within one year of the denial of a request.

The Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure prohibit the granting of a new variance of use or development standards unless it can be proven that a substantial change from the previously denied petition has occurred.

APPROVAL PETITION FINDINGS OF FACT

Criterion 1 states “THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT INDUCED THE PRIOR DENIAL WARRANTING RELIEF FROM THE REFILING RULE BECAUSE.” The petitioner’s response is “this petition is unrelated to 2018-UV3-018 which was denied October 16, 2018. Petition 2018-UV3-018 was located on the same parcel as the proposed petition but was related to a different building in the Village Plaza Shopping Center for a different potential tenant. Petition 2018-UV3-018 was a petition for a Variance of Use to permit outdoor commercial smokers adjacent to the tenant space of a proposed catering operation at 8914 South Meridian Street. The current proposed petition is for a Variance of Use and Development Standards to allow for the operation of an Ace Hardware with a fenced in outdoor storage area to be located at the northernmost building in the Village Plaza Shopping Center.”

o Staff concurs that the previous request was related to a tenant space in a separate building on the same parcel and that the proposed request for a hardware store is completely unrelated to the location of petition 2018-UV3-018.

GENERAL INFORMATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN Meridian Street is classified in the Official Thoroughfare Plan

for Marion County, Indiana as a primary arterial, with a 120-foot existing right-of-way and a 120-foot proposed right-of-way.

County Line Road is classified in the Official Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County, Indiana as a primary arterial, with a 120-foot existing right-of-way and a 120-foot proposed right-of-way.

(Continued)

5

STAFF REPORT 2019-AP3-001 (Continued) SITE PLAN File-dated February 4, 2019.

2018-UV3-018 LETTER File-dated February 4, 2019. FINDINGS OF FACT File-dated February 4, 2019. ZONING HISTORY – SITE EXISTING VIOLATIONS None. PREVIOUS CASES 2001-DV2-009; 8902 South Meridian Street, Variance of development standards of the Sign Regulations to provide for a 40-foot tall, 14 by 48-foot advertising sign, with 125 feet of radial separation from an existing advertising sign (minimum 500 feet of radial separation required), withdrawn. 2004-DV3-011; 8902 South Meridian Street, Variance of development standards of the Sign Regulations to provide for the relocation of an existing 672-square foot outdoor advertising sign to a location 300 feet to the northeast (maximum 378-square foot outdoor advertising sign permitted), denied. 2013-UV3-007; 8902 South Meridian Street, Variance of use of the commercial Zoning Ordinance to provide for a tattoo parlor and related services, without the grant of a special exception, and within 500 feet of a protected district (not permitted), granted.

This variance was permitted with the commitment that “the grant of this variance is temporary and exclusive to the petitioner, expiring on September 17, 2008.”

2018-UV3-016; 8902 South Meridian Street, Variance of use of the Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to provide for tattoo parlor without a special exception and within 500 feet of a protected district., granted. 2018-UV3-018; 8902 South Meridian Street, Variance of use of the Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to provide outdoor commercial smokers (not permitted) adjacent to the tenant space of a proposed catering operation at 8914 South Meridian Street, denied. ZONING HISTORY – VICINITY 87-HOV-106; 8978 South Meridian Street (east of site), Variance of development standards of the of the Sign Regulations to provide for two wall signs which exceed the total square feet permitted, granted. 87-HOV-142; 402 West County Line Road (west of site), Variance of development standards of the Dwelling Districts Zoning Ordinance to provide for residential development without public street frontage or direct access to public streets, granted.

(Continued)

6

STAFF REPORT 2019-AP3-001 (Continued) 90-Z-183 / 90-CV-26; 8905-8928 South Meridian Street (east of site), Rezoning of 12 acres from the D-4 district to the C-3 classification to provide for commercial cluster development and medium density residential development and a variance of development standards of the Commercial Zoning Ordinance to permit a single establishment of 46,000 square feet (30,000 square feet permitted), approved. 90-Z-126; 8824 South Meridian Street (north of site), Rezoning of 12.1 acres from the D-A and D-P districts to the C-1 classification to provide for a medical office, approved. 97-Z-150; 102 East County Line Road (east of site), Rezoning of 3.923 acres from the C-3 district to the C-S classification to provide for the construction of a self-storage facility, approved. 2002-DV2-004; 8904 South Meridian Street (south of site), Variance of Development Standards of the Commercial Zoning Ordinance to provide for a 38,625-square foot integrated center, with 107 parking spaces, granted.

2008-UV1-012; 424 West Count Line Road (west of site), Variance of use and development standards of the Dwelling District Zoning Ordinance to provide for general office use (not permitted), and for parking within the required 40-foot front yard along County Line Road (not permitted) and for an interior access drive within the required 25-foot front yard along Illinois Street (not permitted), denied. 2008-DV3-044; 8923 South Meridian Street (east of site), Variance of Development Standards of the Commercial Zoning Ordinance to legally establish eleven dumpsters without screening, granted. 2015-DV3-045; 8923 South Meridian Street (east of site), Variance of development standards of the Commercial Zoning Ordinance to provide for an outdoor seating area (not permitted) and to provide for carryout food service within 70 feet of the nearest protected district (100-foot separation required), approved. PS

*******

7

2019-AP3-001; Location Map

8

2019-AP3-001; Aerial Map

9

2019-AP3-001; Site Plan

10

2019-AP3-001; 2018-UV3-018 Letter

11

2019-AP3-001; Findings of Fact

12

2019-AP3-001; Photographs

Photo of the Subject Property: 8914 (8902-parcel) South Meridian Street

Photo of the commercial center across Meridian.

Photo of the additional retail space on the western portion of the subject property.

13

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-UV3-001 Address: 5900, 5946, 5950 and 5954 West Minnesota Street (approximate

address) Location: Wayne Township, Council District #22 Zoning: I-2 Petitioner: Indianapolis Airport Authority, by David Kingen and Justin Kingen Request: Variance of use and development standards of the Consolidated

Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to provide for a fleet terminal (not permitted) on a site with 40-foot side and rear transitional yards along a portion of the northeast and northwest corners (50-foot transitional yard required) with 20-foot side setbacks (30-foot side setbacks required), and to provide for a parking area encroaching into approximately 21% of the front yard setback (maximum 10% permitted).

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following commitments:

1. The variance grant shall be subject to substantial compliance with the site plan, file dated February 7, 2019.

2. The variance grant shall be subject to substantial compliance with the landscape plan, file-

dated March 6, 2019. SUMMARY OF ISSUES LAND USE EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE

I-2 Undeveloped

SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE

North - C-1 Railroad right-of-way South - SU46 / I-2 Open space / parking lot for fraternal organization East - D-A Undeveloped West - D-3 Interstate 465 right-of-way

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends light industrial uses for the site.

(Continued)

14

STAFF REPORT 2019-UV3-001 (Continued) VARIANCE OF USE

This 1.64-acre site is zoned I-2 and is undeveloped.

A previous petition (2017-ZON-011) rezoned the subject site from the D-3 and SU-46 Districts, to the I-2 classification. That request was approved, subject to a commitment. The commitment requires that a tree inventory and preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for Administrator's Approval prior to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit (ILP) and prior to any site preparation activity. This plan shall, at a minimum: a) delineate the location of the existing trees, b) characterize the size and species of such trees, c) indicate proposed development, and d) identify the method of preservation (e.g. provision of snow fencing or staked straw bales at the individual tree's dripline during construction activity). All trees proposed for removal shall be indicated as such. All development shall be located in a manner which causes the least amount of disruption to the trees.

The commitment associated with the previous rezoning petition is still valid and enforceable. Therefore, a tree inventory and preservation plan will still need to be submitted prior to the issuance of any Improvement Location Permit (ILP) and prior to any site preparation activity related to this variance grant.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends light industrial land uses for the subject site. “The Light Industrial typology provides for industrial, production, distribution, and repair uses conducted within enclosed structures and unlikely to create emissions of light, odor, noise, or vibrations. This typology is characterized by freestanding buildings or groups of buildings, often within industrial parks. Typical uses include warehousing, self-storage, assembly of parts, laboratories, wholesaling, and printing. Industrial or truck traffic should be separated from local/residential traffic.”

The proposed use would be permitted in the I-3 and I-4 Districts, which requires certain development standards designed to minimize the impact of outside automotive uses from the surrounding developments. This request would be a deviation from those standards.

To help mitigate the impact on adjacent sensitive uses, the submitted site plan limits the amount of outside storage to four tractor trailer units. In addition, the small size of the site limits the primary uses to office and service functions for the fleet. Therefore, Staff is requesting a commitment that the operation be limited to substantial compliance with the proposed site plan.

VARIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

The transitional yards to the north and east are required due to adjacent parcels with remnant zoning of D3 and DA. The D3 zoning is located at the northwest corner of the subject site, in a railroad right-of-way and is an inappropriate zoning for that use. The DA zoning is located at the northeast corner of the subject site on a portion of undeveloped parcel. The proposed 40-foot side and rear transitional yards along a portion of the northeast and northwest corners would not impact the adjacent properties and would be a minor deviation from the Ordinance.

(Continued)

15

STAFF REPORT 2019-UV3-001 (Continued)

The proposed 20-foot side setbacks, where 30-foot side setbacks are required, would allow for efficient maneuvering and turning area for the tractor trucks and trailers. The proposed 20-foot side setbacks would still provide adequate space to mitigate any adverse impacts and provide the minimum area necessary for maintenance and screening.

The site is located in a mixed-use area, including medium industrial, commercial, and office uses. In Staff’s opinion, the reduced transitional yards and side yards would be similar to adjacent properties in the area, and would not be out of context with or detrimental to the community or surrounding area.

The site plan shows a parking area encroaching into approximately 21% of the front yard setback. This parking area would be for employee and customer parking only. No large trucks or equipment would utilize the front parking area. The parking area encroaching into the front yard allows for the primary structure to be placed further forward on the lot, providing appropriate maneuvering and turning area for the tractor trucks and trailers.

The proposed landscape plan along West Minnesota Street would help mitigate any negative impacts from the parking area encroachment. Additionally, the parking area would be setback similarly to the parking lots of other uses to the east.

GENERAL INFORMATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN This portion of West Minnesota Street is designated in the

Marion County 4horoughfare Plan as a primary collector, with an existing 20-foot half right-of-way, a proposed 80-foot right-of-way.

SITE PLAN File-dated February 7, 2019

LANDSCAPE PLAN

FINDINGS OF FACT

File-dated March 6, 2019.

File-dated February 7, 2019. ZONING HISTORY 2017-ZON-011; 5900, 5946, 5950, 5954 and 6002 West Minnesota Street (subject site), requested the rezoning of 2.16 acres, from the D-3 and SU-46 Districts, to the I-2 classification, approved. 2013-UV2-012; 5811 West Minnesota Street (south of site), requested a variance of use of the Industrial Zoning Ordinance to provide for a detention center, without overnight stays, granted. 2007-ZON-834 / 2007-VAC-834; 5818 West Minnesota Street (east of site), requested a rezoning of 2.866 acres from the A and D-3 Districts to the I-2-S classification to provide for medium industrial uses; a variance of development standards of the Industrial District Zoning Ordinance to provide for outdoor storage/operations within the setbacks and transitional yard, within 60 feet of a protected district, outdoor storage of up to 25 feet in height, and parking within the front yard; and a vacation of a portion of an alley, approved. (Continued)

16

STAFF REPORT 2019-UV3-001 (Continued) 2006-DV2-057; 1751 South Lawndale Avenue (south of site), requested a variance of development standards of the Sign Regulations to provide for the construction of a 50-foot tall, 152-square foot pole sign with a 60.67-square foot electronic variable message sign component (maximum 40-foot height permitted), granted. 2001-HOV-016; 1701, 1735, and 1751 South Lawndale Avenue (south of site), requested a variance of use of the Industrial Zoning Ordinance to provide for the renovation of a 25.265-square feet building with a 47.8-foot front setback from Lawndale Avenue (minimum 50-foot front setback required and a 25.2-foot side setback (minimum 30-foot side setback required), granted. 99-V2-134; 1820 South Lawndale Avenue (south of site), requested variance of development standards of the Sign Regulations to provide for an advertising sign being 14 by 48 feet in size (maximum 12 by 25 feet permitted), the fourth advertising sign within a one-mile portion of interstate highway (maximum two signs per mile permitted), 400 and 625 feet from two other existing advertising signs (minimum 1,000 feet required), and 12 feet from the right-of-way of Interstate 465 (minimum 60 feet required), denied. 99-Z-128; 5708 West Minnesota Street (east of site), requested a rezoning of 15.168 acres from I-3-U, D-3, and C-1 to the I-3-U classification to conform zoning to an existing industrial park, approved. 98-V1-58; 1820 South Lawndale Avenue (south of site), requested variance of development standards of the Sign Regulations to provide for an advertising sign being 14 by 48 feet in size (maximum 12 by 25 feet permitted); 500, 600, 750, and 750 feet from other advertising signs (minimum of 1,000 feet required); and resulting in five advertising signs within a one-mile portion of I-465 (maximum two advertising signs per mile permitted), denied. 97-V1-4; 1717 Production Drive (east of site), requested a variance of use and development standards of the sign Regulations to provide for the construction of an industrial building with: a) a 30-foot wide transitional front yard setback along Minnesota Street (minimum 100 feet required or minimum 40 feet required with enhanced landscaping); b) parking located in the transitional front yard setback long Minnesota Street (not permitted); c) loading area width of 100 feet (minimum 66 feet required); d) placement of two ground signs (maximum one free standing identification sign on a lot for each frontage on a separate street permitted, granted. 93-UV1-083; 5811 West Minnesota Street (east of site), requested a variance of use of the Industrial Zoning Ordinance, to provide for truck and car rental, maintenance and storage of vehicles, and offices, in an area zoned I-2-S, granted. 83-HOV-109; 1945 South Lawndale Avenue (south of site), requesting variance of size and spacing development standards of the Sign Regulations to allow a 14 by 48-foot advertising pole sign at 60 feet from the interstate right-of-way, granted. 83-HOV-96; 6001 West Minnesota Street (west of site), requesting variance of size, spacing, height and setback development standards of the Sign Regulations to allow a 10.5 by 36-foot advertising pole sign within 1,500 feet of an exit roadway, granted. RU * * * * * * *

17

STAFF REPORT 2019-UV3-001 (Continued) 2019-UV3-001: Location Map

18

2019-UV3-001: Site Plan

19

2019-UV3-001: Landscape Plan

20

2019-UV3-001: Photographs

View of subject site, looking north

View of adjacent open space / parking lot for fraternal organization, to the south.

21

View of adjacent I-465 right-of-way to the west

View of adjacent railroad right-of-way to the north, looking east

22

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-UV3-002 Address: Five locations between 308 West Morris Street and 101 East Morris

Street; Four locations between 1434 and 1718 South Meridian Street and one location near 702 Russell Avenue (Approximate addresses)

Location: Center Township, Council District #16 Petitioner: Old Southside Neighborhood Association, by Judith Essex Request: Variance of use and development standards of the Consolidated

Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to provide for 30-inch wide by 46-inch high banners as Public Signs, as provided for and amended by Petition 2018-APP-032, attached to utility poles within the right-of-way and within protected districts (not permitted) along Morris Street, Russell Avenue, Norwood Street and Meridian Street.

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the petition. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The following issues were considered in formulating the recommendation: REQUEST / LAND USE

This request would provide for public signs, as permitted by 2018-APP-032, for neighborhood identification south of downtown in protected districts. 2018-APP-032 was approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission on March 6, 2019, and included the signs requested in this petition, however, the Sign Regulations require a variance petition to permit the public signs in protected districts. As a condition of approval of that petition, this petition was filed. All of the proposed signs would be no larger than 30” by 46” and be placed on existing Indianapolis Power and Light utility poles within the public right-of-way.

2018-APP-032 was also approved with a commitment between the petitioner and a business organization that would only permit public signs north of Interstate 70 if an agreement on a proposed design is met. This petition includes one site, with two signs, north of Interstate 70, at 702 Russell Avenue. Therefore, prior to installation of public signs at that location, an agreement must be made on a proposed design between the two parties.

The remaining ten sites are located south of Interstate 70. A few of these sites request multiple signs, for a total of 18 public signs.

(Continued)

23

STAFF REPORT 2019-UV3-002 (Continued)

The submitted sign location plan is very general and it is difficult to discern from the plan the exact location of each sign. The petitioner verbally indicated that several of the sign locations could be removed as they may be located too close together. Staff has concerns that signs too close to each other could be overwhelming and promote sign clutter. The petitioner verbally indicated that the goal would be to locate signs at street intersections rather than erect multiple signs along streets. Staff would support that goal.

As with the staff recommendation of approval on 2018-APP-032, staff would not oppose the request as long as they are no greater in size than other public signs in established neighborhoods. Such signs exist in Herron-Morton Place and Old Northside and are 30” by 46” in size. The petitioner has indicated that the signs would be a little smaller, at 26” by 46” in size.

The signs would be pedestrian-friendly due to their fairly small size and would promote the intent of the signs, which is to increase the visibility of the neighborhood to non-residents. Finally, the signs would have at least an eight-foot clearance from grade to meet Ordinance standards for minimum separation from grade to the sign.

REGIONAL CENTER OVERLAY ZONE

The approval of 2018-APP-032 removed the need for Regional Center Approval.

GENERAL INFORMATION EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE D-5, D-8, PK-1, and D-8 (RC) Public right-of-way

SITE MAPS File-dated February 5, 2019 SIGN ELEVATIONS File-dated February 5, 2019 FINDINGS OF FACT File-dated February 5, 2019 ZONING HISTORY

2018-APP-032; 324 West Morris and various locations in the Old Southside Neighborhood, requests approval of 26-inch wide by 56.5-inch high banners as Public Signs attached to utility poles on locations along Morris Street, Russell Avenue, Illinois Street, West Street, McCarty Street, Meridian Street, South Street, Kentucky Avenue, Norwood Street, Merrill Street and Bluff Road, approved. JY *******

24

Location map

25

Proposed sign elevation

2019-UV3-002

26

Similar size sign for Old Northside neighborhood 2019-UV3-002

27

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2018-DV3-055 Address: 245 North Delaware Street (Approximate address) Location: Center Township, Council District #11 Zoning: CBD-2 (RC) Petitioner: Wheeler Mission Ministries, Inc., by David Kingen and Justin Kingen Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for four window signs on the north façade and two window signs along the western façade exceeding 20% of the window surface area and 100 square feet (not permitted) and one 625-square foot upper-level wall sign on the southern façade (equaling 65.2% (maximum 10% permitted).

The petitioner has submitted a request to continue this petition to the April 16, 2019 hearing. A staff report will be available prior to that hearing. JY *******

28

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2018-DV3-056 Address: 3615 White Cedar Court (approximate address) Location: Wayne Township, Council District #11 Zoning: D-6II (W-5) Petitioner: Irma Hernandez, by Wendy Hernandez Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for a front porch addition with a zero-foot side setback from common area used for ingress/egress (15-foot side setback required).

This petition was continued from the December 18, 2018 hearing, to the January 15, 2019 hearing, from the January 15, 2019 hearing to the February 19, 2019 hearing, and from the February 19, 2019 hearing to the March 19, 2019 hearing at the request of the petitioner to provide time to amend the petition and provide new notice. This petition will need to be continued from the March 19, 2019 hearing, to the April 16, 2019, hearing at the request of the petitioner, to provide additional time to amend the petition and provide new notice. RU *******

29

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2018-DV3-057 (Amended) Address: 4103 (4119-parcel) South Lynhurst Drive (approximate address) Location: Decatur Township, Council District #22 Zoning: SU-1 Petitioner: Bobby Winter and Renata Winter Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for a 7.5-foot tall, 3.5-foot clearance, 32-square foot sign, within 35 feet of the nearest protected district, and with a zero-foot front setback (maximum four-foot tall sign permitted within 600 feet of a protected district; 9-foot clearance from grade level required; 15-foot front setback required).

ADDENDUM FOR MARCH 19, 2019 This petition was continued by the petitioner to allow time to amend the request. The petitioner supplied new information requiring additional notice. Staff continues to recommend denial. ADDENDUM FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2019 A timely automatic continuance was filed for this petition by a registered neighborhood association, continuing this from the January 15, 2019 BZA III Hearing to the February 19, 2019 BZA III Hearing. January 15, 2019 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends denial of this request. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The following issues were considered in formulating the recommendation: LAND USE EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE SU-1 Metro Religious Use SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE North D-5 Single-Family Residential South D-5 Single-Family Residential East D-5 Single-Family Residential West D-5 Single-Family Residential

(Continued)

30

STAFF REPORT 2018-DV3-057 (Continued) LAND USE PLAN The Decatur Township Comprehensive Plan (2017) recommends

special use development.

The site is currently developed with a small religious structure and a single-family dwelling on a lot that is platted consistent with the area and D-5 zoning.

The surrounding sites are on similarly-platted lots developed with single-family residential on D-5 lots.


The grant of this request would permit an illuminated pole sign with deficient setbacks, clearance, and distance from a protected district.

While the clearance is not advertised nor did the petitioner ask for this, it is shown on the provided elevations.

Setbacks are required to keep a minimum distance between property improvements and help reduce obstructions adjacent to a right-of-way. Additionally, setbacks provide the required space to construct and maintain improvements on a property without requiring access through adjacent properties or blocking city property.

Pole signs are prohibited within 600 feet of a protected district to limit the commercialization of residential neighborhoods.

Section 744-903.A.1 in the Ordinance states that the sign face of a pole sign shall be located a minimum of nine feet above grade level. In order to meet these requirements, the proposed 7.5-foot tall sign would have to be increased to 13 feet tall.

A four-foot tall, 24-square foot ground sign could be constructed in front of the building with a 15-foot front setback without a variance grant.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FINDINGS OF FACT

Criterion 2 states “THE USE AND VALUE OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED IN A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE MANNER.” The petitioner’s response is “The proposed sign will be further from the area on the right of the property. The area on the left of the property is separated by at least two lots. Therefore, the light from the sign should not adversely affect either areas [sic.]. The petitioner only plans to use the illuminated feature of the sign twice a week and during special services. There is currently a light on the property for security reasons that is brighter than the sign. There has not been any complaints from other property owners concerning the illumination.”

o Staff believes that the grant of this variance would negatively impact the adjacent property owners by permitting the commercialization of the subject property. Additionally, the reduced setback permits the illumination of the pole sign to be closer to adjacent properties thus making them brighter during nightfall.

(Continued)

31

STAFF REPORT 2018-DV3-057 (Continued)

Criterion 3 states “THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE.” The petitioner’s response is “It is impossible for the petitioner to place the sign at the required 15’ setback due to that distance being at the front entrance of the building. If the sign is set that far back, the purpose for which the sign was purchased could not be accomplished. The petitioner would like to utilize the illumination feature of the sign twice a week and during special services, but currently cannot due to the 600’ requirement in a protected district. The sign also has a grade clearance of less than 8’ that is impeding the petitioner’s ability to install the sign for the purpose of creating awareness of the church’s presence and events available to the community. For example, the neighborhood watch is hosted at the property every third Thursday and the petitioner would like to be able to advertise the meeting utilizing the sign.”

o Staff does not believe there is a practical difficulty in the use of the property. The property is permitted wall signs and ground signs (non-illuminated) without the grant of a variance. The grant of this variance would not prohibit the church from operating or advertising their services on other platforms.

GENERAL INFORMATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN Lynhurst Drive is classified in the Official Thoroughfare Plan

for Marion County, Indiana as a local street, with a 85-foot existing right-of-way and a 85-foot proposed right-of-way.

SITE PLAN File-dated November 7, 2018.

ELEVATIONS File- dated November 7, 2018. FINDINGS OF FACT File- dated November 7, 2018. ZONING HISTORY – SITE EXISTING VIOLATIONS SGN18-00857; 4119 South Lynhurst Drive, New 32 square-foot, 7.5-foot tall pole sign with internal illumination, a reduced front setback and located within 600 feet of a protected district, pending for variance decision. PREVIOUS CASES None. ZONING HISTORY – VICINITY None. PS

*******

32

2018-DV3-057; Location Map

33

2018-DV3-057; Site Plan

34

2018-DV3-057; Elevations

35

2018-DV3-057; Findings of Fact

36

2018-DV3-057; Photographs

Photo of the Subject Property: 4103 (4119-parcel) South Lynhurst Drive


37


38

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-DV3-003 Address: 5402 Lobo Drive (approximate address) Location: Franklin Township, Council District #18 Zoning: D-4 Petitioner: Tara Sumner, by Ted Nolting Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for a six-foot tall privacy fence in the front yard of Straw Hat Drive (maximum 3.5-foot tall fence permitted).

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends denial of this request. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The following issues were considered in formulating the recommendation: LAND USE EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE D-4 Metro Single-Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE North D-4 Single-Family Residential South D-4 Single-Family Residential East D-4 Single-Family Residential West D-4 Single-Family Residential LAND USE PLAN The Franklin Township Comprehensive Plan (2018) recommends

suburban neighborhood development.

The 0.27-acre site is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. A six-foot tall fence has been erected within the front yard of Straw Hat Drive.

The surrounding sites are single-family dwellings located in the same platted subdivision as the subject site. Many of the surrounding properties comply with fencing Ordinance standards. However, a few properties appear to be in violation as they have not received a variance for their six-foot tall fences within front yards.


The grant of this request would legalize the six-foot tall privacy fence in the front yard of Straw Hat Drive.

(Continued)

39


The traditional neighborhood land use plan recommendation is to provide for predominately single-family housing, but interspersed with attached and multifamily housing where appropriate. This typology should be supported by a variety of neighborhood-serving businesses, institutions, and amenities. This typology recommends a density range of 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre, but higher density is recommended if the development is within a quarter mile of a frequent transit line, greenway, or park. Development condition recommendations include:

o All land use types must have adequate municipal water and sanitary sewer, o All development should include sidewalks along the street frontage, o Curvilinear streets should e used with discretion and should maintain the same general

direction.

The purpose of the D-4 district is for low or medium intensity single-family and two-family residential development. Land in this district should have good thoroughfare access, relatively flat topography, and nearby community services. The D-4 district has a typical density of 4.2 units per gross acre.

Height requirements are in place to limit bulk, create a consistent density and intensity, and keep structures at a human-scale. This regulation limits the number of “walls” or abnormally tall structures that can be built to ensure neighborhood compatibility and to prevent unreasonable blockage of sunlight. This regulation applies to both fences and buildings.


Criterion 1 states “THE APPROVAL WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.” The petitioner’s response is “The privacy fence is compatible with other fences and structures in the Southern View subdivision and the fence will not obscure vision of traffic at street intersections.”

o Staff determined that the height of the fence in the front yard of Straw Hat Drive impedes sight lines for pedestrians and possibly vehicles travelling in the right-of-way. A reduced sight line creates dangerous situations by reducing the amount of time to react to potentially dangerous situations, by reducing natural sight line and impacting the personal safety of pedestrians and recreational users and by increasing the opportunity for and impact of vehicular and pedestrian conflicts.

Criterion 2 states “THE USE AND VALUE OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED IN A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE MANNER.” The petitioner’s response is “the constructed fence is of high quality material and will be an improvement to the property in question and the surrounding properties.”

o Staff concludes that the legalization of the fence would be detrimental to the adjacent properties. The height of the fence in the front yard is predominately commercial or industrial in nature, impacting the aesthetics of the streetscape. This intensity of the built environment would be detrimental to the value of the adjacent properties.

(Continued)

40


Criterion 3 states “THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE.” The petitioner’s response is “a fence small [sic.] than 6’ is difficult to contain a pet dog owned by the resident of the property and does not provide adequate privacy for the existing above-ground swimming pool in the back yard.”

o The Zoning Ordinance provides for six-foot tall fences in rear and side yards. A property located six-foot tall fence would provide space for their pets and screen the porch. A 3.5-foot tall fence could be constructed at the front property line. See Diagram A, showing where a six-foot tall fence and 3.5-foot tall fence could be placed without a variance.

GENERAL INFORMATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN Lobo Drive is classified in the Official Thoroughfare Plan for

Marion County, Indiana as a local street, with a 70-foot existing right-of-way and a 70-foot proposed right-of-way.

Straw Hat Drive is classified in the Official Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County, Indiana as a local street, with a 80-foot existing right-of-way and a 80-foot proposed right-of-way.

SITE PLAN File-dated January 14, 2019.

FINDINGS OF FACT File-dated January 14, 2019. ZONING HISTORY – SITE EXISTING VIOLATIONS VIO18-006657; 5402 Lobo Drive, zoning violation of 6-foot tall fence located in the front yard (3.5 feet maximum permitted) – citation date of 22 August, 2018, awaiting variance decision. PREVIOUS CASES None. ZONING HISTORY – VICINITY None. PS

*******

41


42

2019-DV3-003; Aerial Map

2019-DV3-003; Diagram A

Six-Foot tall Fence 3.5-Foot tall Fence

43


44

2019-DV3-003; Violation Attachments (VIO18-006657)

45


46


47


48


Photo of the Subject Property: 5402 Lobo Drive

Photo displaying the proximity of the six-foot tall fence to the sidewalk. Straw Hat Drive is to the left in

this photograph.

49

Photo looking southeast showing the proximity of the six-foot tall fence to the sidewalk. Straw Hat

Drive is to the right in this photograph.

Photo showing the subject fence and the adjacent compliant fence to the northwest.

50

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-DV3-005 Address: 1538 Ringgold Avenue (approximate address) Location: Center Township, Council District #21 Zoning: D-5 Petitioner: Sahar Montalvo, by Mark and Kim Crouch Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for single-family dwelling on an existing foundation, with a seven-foot front setback, a two-inch south side setback, four-foot separation between dwellings and 47% open space (18-foot front setback or average, three-foot side setback, 10-foot separation between dwellings and 60% open space required).

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends denial of the request. SUMMARY OF ISSUES LAND USE ISSUES EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE

D-5 Singe-family dwelling SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE

North - D-5 Single-family dwelling South - D-5 Single-family dwelling East - D-5 Single-family dwelling West - D-5 Single-family dwelling

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recommends Traditional Neighborhood

uses for the site. VARIANCE OF DEVELOPMMENT STANDARDS

This request would provide for a single-family dwelling on an existing foundation, with a seven-foot front setback, a two-inch south side setback, four-foot separation between dwellings and 47% open space.

Based on Staff site photos, and input from the zoning inspector who issued the violation on this property, the petitioner had demolished the previous single-family dwelling down to the existing foundation, and poured a new foundation on the inside perimeter of the old foundation. This request would address the newly poured foundations, and not the original foundations of the previous dwelling.

(Continued)

51


A Stop Work Order on this property was also issued by the Department of Building and Neighborhood Services. The Stop Work Order was issued due to the failure to obtain a wrecking permit for the removal of framing & wall sections from existing structure without a required demolition permit. The work exceeded the scope of the issued structural permit for an 18’x14.5’ room addition and an 87 square-foot front porch.

While Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, as early as 1915, indicate the presence of a two-family dwelling of similar size and location as the existing dwelling, Staff would note that such construction would have predated the implementation of zoning in Marion County. Similarly, the subject site is located within a subdivision which was originally platted in 1887, which predates zoning ordinance requirements, specifically, minimum lot requirements. Therefore, Staff believes that some degree of practical difficulty to be associated with the subject site.

However, Staff believes that the new construction on such a substandard lot should adequately align with modern development standards in order to better preserve the intent of each development standard. In Staff’s opinion, by proposing a single-family dwelling on an existing foundation with reduced setbacks, with a significant increase over the previous structure’s massing without increasing the side yard setbacks, open space or building separation, would provide for increased intensity and negatively impact adjacent properties.

Development Standards of the Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, specifically those relating to building separation and setbacks, are intended to ensure orderly development and protect surrounding property values, by providing for open buffer areas along lot lines and to ensure adequate access around buildings, as well as to prevent fires from spreading between buildings.

The proposed four-foot separation between primary dwellings would be suitable for a dwelling of similar size and massing as the previous single-family dwelling. The previous single-family dwelling is a single-story structure with a gabled attic, which does not encroach upon the adjoining properties. However, this petition proposes the construction of a larger single-family dwelling. By adding a significantly larger building to the site, there is a need for additional side setbacks and separation between dwellings, as opposed to the request for reduced separations.

As proposed, the seven-foot front yard setback, where 18 feet is required, would be a reduction of 62%. However, the proposed front setback would line up with the previous setback, and the setbacks of adjacent properties. Staff believes the proposed setback reduction would represent a minor deviation from the Ordinance.

As proposed, the single-family dwelling would have a two-inch south side setback, where a three-foot separation is required. As indicated above, Staff believes that increasing the side setback for the proposed new construction would decrease the intensity of the request, preserve the intent of the Ordinance, while maintaining the development viability of the site.

(Continued)

52


Development Standards of the Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, specifically those relating to open space requirements, are intended to maintain a consistent development pattern within residential districts by discouraging the overdevelopment of lots, which would result in a cluttered appearance that would negatively impact adjacent property owners.

While an open space of 47% is being requested, sixty percent open space is required. The request would represent a 24% reduction from the Ordinance. Staff believes that such a reduction in open space would represent a significant deviation from the Ordinance, and negatively impact adjacent property owners.

GENERAL INFORMATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN This portion of Ringgold Avenue is classified in the Official

Thoroughfare Plan for Marion County, Indiana as a local street, with a 30-foot existing and proposed half right-of-way.

SITE PLAN File-dated February 11, 2019.

FINDINGS OF FACT File-dated February 11, 2019.

ZONING HISTORY 2018-DV2-015; 1517 Leonard Street (north of site), requested a variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to legally establish and provide for an existing single-family dwelling and dwelling addition with six feet between dwellings and a 12-foot front setback, granted. 2012-DV3-036; 1524 Ringgold Avenue (north of site), requested a variance of development standards of the Dwelling Districts Zoning Ordinance to provide for a room addition, with a 1.5-foot north side setback and a 4.5-foot aggregate side setback, granted. 2006-UV2-036;1601 Leonard Street (south of site), requested a variance of use and development standards of the Dwelling Districts Zoning Ordinance to legally establish a three-family dwelling, with a 21-foot front setback from Leonard Street, and a seven-foot front setback from Palmer Street, and to legally establish a 600-square-foot detached garage with a four-foot front setback in front of the established front building line set by the primary structure, granted. 2003-UV2-039; 817 Parkway Avenue (north of site), requested a variance of use to legally establish a 3,170-square foot, four-unit multi-family dwelling and a Variance of Development Standards to establish a 7-foot front yard setback and 3-foot setbacks on either side yard, granted. RU *******

53


54


(1536 Ringgold Avenue is the single-family dwelling property on the right)

55


1544, 1540, and 1538 Ringgold Avenue looking west.

Subject site, 1538 Ringgold Avenue looking west

56

Existing and new construction seven-foot front setback, looking north.

Two-inch south side setback and four-foot separation between dwellings, looking west.

57

New foundation addition to the rear of the dwelling and from the originally constructed single-family

dwelling, looking east.

New foundation poured on the inside perimeter of the old original foundation, looking east.

58

Single-family dwelling to the north of the site, looking east.

Partially-demolished Single-family dwelling to the south of the site, looking west.

59

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-DV3-006 Address: 1540 Ringgold Avenue (approximate address) Location: Center Township, Council District #21 Zoning: D-5 Petitioner: Sahar Montalvo, Edge Investments Group LLC and Paige and Rose

Properties LLC, by Mark and Kim Crouch Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for single-family dwelling on an existing foundation, with a seven-foot front setback, a one-foot south side setback, four-foot separation between dwellings and 47% open space (18-foot front setback or average, three-foot side setback, 10-foot separation between dwellings and 60% open space required).






This request would provide for a single-family dwelling on an existing foundation, with a seven-foot front setback, a one-foot south side setback, four-foot separation between dwellings and 47% open space.

Based on Staff site photos, and input from the zoning inspector who issued the violation on this property, the petitioner had demolished the previous single-family dwelling down to the existing foundation, and poured a new foundation on the inside perimeter of the old foundation. This request would address the newly poured foundations, and not the original foundations of the previous dwelling. (Continued)

60


A Stop Work Order on this property was also issued by the Department of Building and Neighborhood Services. The Stop Work Order was issued due to the failure to obtain a wrecking permit for the removal of framing & wall sections from existing structure without a required demolition permit. The work exceeded the scope of the issued structural permit for an interior remodel, new interior walls, a 18’x14.5’ room addition, new windows, and a change of roof line.




The proposed four-foot separation between primary dwellings would be suitable for a dwelling of similar size and massing as the previous single-family dwelling. The previous single-family dwelling is a single-story structure with a gabled attic, which does not encroach upon the adjoining properties. However, this petition proposes the construction of a larger single-family dwelling. By adding a significantly larger building to the site, there is a need for additional side setbacks and separation between dwellings, as opposed to the request for reduced separations.

As proposed, the seven-foot front yard setback, where 18 feet is required, would be a reduction of 62%. However, the proposed front setback would line up with the previous setback, and the setbacks of adjacent properties. Staff believes the proposed setback reduction would represent a minor deviation from the Ordinance.

As proposed, the single-family dwelling would have a one-foot south side setback, where a three-foot separation is required. As indicated above, Staff believes that increasing the side setback for the proposed new construction would decrease the intensity of the request, preserve the intent of the Ordinance, while maintaining the development viability of the site.

(Continued)

61









62


63


(1540 Ringgold Avenue is the single-family dwelling property in the middle)

64




65

Existing and new construction seven-foot front setback, looking north.

four-foot separation between dwellings on the north side, looking west.

66

four-foot separation between dwellings and one-foot south side setback, looking west.



67

New foundation poured on the inside perimeter of the old original foundation, looking south.

Partial new construction single-family dwelling to the south of the site, looking east.

68

Partially-demolished Single-family dwelling to the north of the site, looking west.

69

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-DV3-007 Address: 1544 Ringgold Avenue (approximate address) Location: Center Township, Council District #21 Zoning: D-5 Petitioner: Sahar Montalvo, Edge Investments Group LLC and Paige and Rose

Properties LLC, by Mark and Kim Crouch Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for single-family dwelling on an existing foundation, with a 6.5-foot front setback, a one-foot south side setback, four-foot and 1.5-foot separation between dwellings and 47% open space (18-foot front setback or average, three-foot side setback, 10-foot separation between dwellings and 60% open space required).






This request would provide for a single-family dwelling on an existing foundation, with a 6.5-foot front setback, a one-foot south side setback, four-foot and 1.5-foot separation between dwellings and 47% open space

Based on Staff site photos, and input from the zoning inspector who issued the violation on this property, the petitioner had demolished the previous single-family dwelling down to the existing foundation, and poured a new foundation on the inside perimeter of the old foundation. This request would address the newly poured foundations, and not the original foundations of the previous dwelling. (Continued)

70


A Stop Work Order on this property was also issued by the Department of Building and Neighborhood Services. The Stop Work Order was issued due to the failure to obtain a wrecking permit for the removal of framing & wall sections from existing structure without a required demolition permit. The work exceeded the scope of the issued structural permit for a remodel with new interior walls, a 16’7”’x14.5’ room addition, new roof, and rebuilt front porch.




The proposed four-foot and 1.5-foot separations between primary dwellings would be suitable for a dwelling of similar size and massing as the previous single-family dwelling. The previous single-family dwelling is a single-story structure with a gabled attic, which does not encroach upon the adjoining properties. However, this petition proposes the construction of a larger single-family dwelling. By adding a significantly larger building to the site, there is a need for additional side setbacks and separation between dwellings, as opposed to the request for reduced separations.

As proposed, the 6.5-foot front yard setback, where 18 feet is required, would be a reduction of 63%. However, the proposed front setback would line up with the previous setback, and the setbacks of adjacent properties. Staff believes the proposed setback reduction would represent a minor deviation from the Ordinance.

As proposed, the single-family dwelling would have a one-foot south side setback, where a three-foot separation is required. As indicated above, Staff believes that increasing the side setback for the proposed new construction would decrease the intensity of the request, preserve the intent of the Ordinance, while maintaining the development viability of the site.

(Continued)

71









72


73


(1544 Ringgold Avenue is the single-family dwelling property on the left)

74




75

Existing and new construction 6.5-foot front setback, looking north.

four-foot separation between dwellings on the north side, looking west.

76

1.5-foot separation between dwellings and one-foot south side setback, looking west.



77

New foundation poured on the inside perimeter of the old original foundation, looking west.

Partially-demolished Single-family dwelling to the north of the site, looking west.

78

Single-family dwelling to the south of the site, looking west.

79

STAFF REPORT


Current Planning Section Case Number: 2019-DV3-008 Address: 7307 Holliday Drive West (approximate address) Location: Washington Township, Council District #2 Zoning: D-1 Petitioner: Andrew Thompson, by James P. Mack Request: Variance of development standards of the Consolidated Zoning and

Subdivision Ordinance to provide for an addition with an eight-foot north side setback and 20-foot aggregate side setback (12-foot side setback and 30-foot aggregate required) and to provide for a six-foot tall privacy fence along the east side lot line within the front yard of 73rd Street and to provide for a four-foot tall fence within the clear sight triangle of the abutting streets and driveway (maximum four-foot tall with 30% opacity or less) and within the clear sight triangle of the abutting streets (not permitted).

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends denial of this request. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The following issues were considered in formulating the recommendation: LAND USE EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE D-1 Metro Single-Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE North D-1 Single-Family Residential South D-2 Single-Family Residential East D-1 Single-Family Residential West D-1 Single-Family Residential LAND USE PLAN The Washington Township Comprehensive Plan (2018)

recommends suburban neighborhood development.

The site is currently developed with a one-story, single-family dwelling. The site is developed in a manner consistent with the surrounding lots.

The purpose of the D-1 District is for use in suburban areas, usually with a density of 0.9 units per gross acre. This district provides for estate-style development characterized by generous front yards for trees and a bucolic atmosphere, appropriately served by gently curving roadways.

(Continued)

80


The suburban neighborhood land use plan recommendation is to provide for predominately single-family housing, but interspersed with attached and multifamily housing where appropriate. This typology should be supported by a variety of neighborhood-serving businesses, institutions, and amenities. This typology recommends a density range of 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre, but higher density is recommended if the development is within a quarter mile of a frequent transit line, greenway, or park. Development condition recommendations include:

o All land use types must have adequate municipal water and sanitary sewer, o All development should include sidewalks along the street frontage, o Curvilinear streets should be used with discretion and should maintain the same general

direction. VARIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

The grant of this variance would permit 48-inch tall, wrought iron fences within the clear sight triangle of Holliday Drive West and 73rd Street and within the clear sight triangle of Holliday Drive West and the driveway. Additionally, the grant of this request would permit a six-foot tall fence along the east side property line within the front yard of 73rd Street. The grant of this request would also permit a deficient north side setback for a proposed one-story garage addition.

Height requirements are in place to limit bulk, create a consistent density and intensity, and keep the environment at a human-scale. This regulation limits the number of “walls” or abnormally tall structures that can be built to ensure neighborhood compatibility and to prevent unreasonable blockage of sunlight.

The clear-sight triangle requirement is to provide for sight visibility for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, etc. interacting within intersections. Reduction in visibility at intersections would increase the possibility of motor vehicle or pedestrian accidents.

Setbacks are required to keep a minimum distance between property improvements and help reduce drainage overflows onto adjacent properties. Additionally, setbacks provide the required space needed to construct and maintain structures on a property without requiring access through adjacent properties.


Criterion 1 states “THE APPROVAL WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.” The petitioner’s response is “The portion of the new addition extending to the proposed 8-foot setback will be single-story, and the adjacent north 6-foot wood fence will screen views from the neighbor to the north. The proposed fence variance, for the south and west property lines, is to be a new open decorative 4-foot metal fence that will be open to the neighboring properties. The easterly 6-foot fence will project south to a live of evergreen trees and then step down to the 4-foot metal fence to the southeast corner.”

(Continued)

81


o The grant of this variance would provide a safety hazard to adjacent properties, or any person or vehicle driving along Holliday Drive West or 73rd Street. Permitting fence within the clear sight triangle would inevitably hinder sight-lines along the intersections. Additionally, the six-foot tall fence within the front yard of 73rd Street would block sight lines from the adjacent properties porch (property to the east).

Criterion 2 states “THE USE AND VALUE OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED IN A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE MANNER.” The petitioner’s response is “The new additions will increase property values and upgrade the south neighborhood entrance at Holliday Drive.”

o The grant of the reduced north setback would be inconsistent and incompatible with the neighborhood. The reduced setback would decrease the required space to maintain and care for the dwelling on the subject property.

Criterion 3 states “THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE.” The petitioner’s response is “The existing home is situated too close to the north property line to allow a third-car garage. The property also has a large lot to the south, which is desirable for use by the family’s children, once fencing is present.”

o This property could be developed with a fence and the dwelling could be expanded, both without the grant of any variances. If the fence were angled at the intersection instead of perpendicular it would reduce the danger posed by a fence within the clear sight triangle and no longer require the variance. Additionally, because the lot is relatively large, there is adequate space for the dwelling to expand laterally on the site without the grant of a setback variance.

GENERAL INFORMATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN Holiday Drive West is classified in the Official Thoroughfare

Plan for Marion County, Indiana as a local street, with a 65-foot existing right-of-way and a 65-foot proposed right-of-way.


ELEVATIONS File-dated February 12, 2019. PETITIONER PHOTOGRAPHS File-dated February 12, 2019. FINDINGS OF FACT File-dated February 12, 2019. ZONING HISTORY – SITE EXISTING VIOLATIONS None. PREVIOUS CASES None.

(Continued)

82

STAFF REPORT 2019-DV3-008 (Continued) ZONING HISTORY – VICINITY 2013-DV3-029; 130 West 73rd Street (east of site), Variance of development standards of the Dwelling Districts Zoning Ordinance to provide for a six-foot tall fence, consisting of a three-foot tall natural stone wall, and a three-foot tall ornamental black fence, with two six-foot tall, black ornamental swing gates, within 1.5 feet of the front lot line along 73rd Street, granted. PS *******

83


84

2019-DV3-008; Aerial Map

85


86


87


88

2019-DV3-008; Petitioner Submitted Photographs

89


90


91


92


Photo of the Subject Property from 73rd Street: 7307 Holliday Drive West

Photo of the Subject Property from Holliday Drive West: 7307 Holliday Drive West

93

The intersection of Holliday Drive West and 73rd Street.

metropolitan board of zoning appeals...2019-uv3-002 five locations between 308 west morris and 101...

Documents