Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

[Music] he [Music] d m [Music] [Music] welcome to the town of Avon Board of zoning appeals meeting if you are interested in having a copy the agenda

or the staff reports that are available to the tables to the right of the audience this meeting is being recorded for the public record because of this we request that personal conversations are kept to a minimum and all cell phones are set to vibrate with any phone calls taken outside of the chambers if you are interested in commenting during any public hearing please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience when your name is called please step forward to the podium state your name and address for the record please address your comments to the board and not to staff or the appellant your comment should be should relate directly to the case at hand we do understand that there may may there there may be several persons who wish to speak the chair May therefore impose a time limit for each person Federal Law requires that the town make available to all attendees a title six public involvement survey these surveys are on the table to the right of the audience members of the public who wish to complete this survey may do so and place them in the designated area if because of a disability any person in attendance needs assistance or accommodation to fully participate in this meeting please notify staff thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful fair and timely meeting again Welcome to our meeting please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all and may we have attendance please Paul goodenberger here Ann enman here Katherine rensburg here Marcy tasher here Marcus Turner here first time is

uh the minutes for January 21st 2025 were there any comments Corrections concerns if there are none we'll attain a motion I move we accept the meeting minutes from uh January 21st 2025 as submitted the motion by Mrs ransburg is our second second second by Mrs Inman any discussion all in favor say I I I anyone opposed minutes are approved requests for continuances or agenda modifications Paul thank you chairperson Turner um staff has two requests for continuances of petitions SE 245 and v47 at 7893 East US Highway 36 the petitioner has requested that these petitions again be continued um this property is part of the Lowe's overall property and in um in reviewing this case and investigating the previous approval staff found that there is an outstanding issue related to Prior approvals at the Lowe's property requiring that Lowe's provide a um an access Drive connection to Vista Parkway which the town feels as important we we had discussions with representatives from Lowe's we um we were on a call with representatives from them um I think it was the week before last um and they they plan to take that

up the chain at blows and being a big Corporation we it's not surprised we haven't heard anything back quite yet um so staff is supporting the request for continuance hoping that we can find some resolution solution to that issue and to that end we suggested that it would probably be better to continue with this for two months instead of just one month um so the petitioner agreed and indicated that they would request a continuance I said that I would make that request for them to the April 15th hearing and that would be without additional publish notice but uh would still require mailed notice to be sent by the petitioner so this is is this an an old issue that should have been addressed earlier yeah it it dates back um more than 20 years but was an issue when a somewhat similar request was made in the back in the 2000s to create an outlaw in front of the lowest property and it did not get resolved then um but it it was an important issue to the plan commission that heard those requests um so the town still has the same concerns and we're hoping to get it resolved this time before this goes forward this will be our third continuance I believe that's correct what is the pleasure of the board well I think before anything happens on that property this road issue's got to be rectified so I'd be in favor of pushing it off two more more months I agree we'll entertain a

motion I'll move that we uh uh push forward two months uh the uh Dutch Brothers Coffee variances and can we modify this say with special exception also with special exception and a special exception and a special exception second uh two months to April April 15th I'll second that motion we have a motion by Mrs enman and a second by Mrs ransburg any discussion um and I believe Paul's recommendation was to do this without requirement for further notice public or mailed notice we don't think it would require additional public notice I don't believe that theer has sent mailed notice because they didn't anticipate it going for it previously so um I believe they'll still need to send out notice for that date if they're ready to go forward if they think they'll be ready to go forward then so this is without further published notice yeah with mailed notice by the petitioner do we need to make that a formal part of our motion no okay no that's the state law requirement so they have to meet that regardless thank you any other discussion roll call vote please luenberger four Inman four ransburg four tasher four Turner four next item is public comment does anyone wish to address the board and with no one coming forward we will close public comment so now we've rearrange now that we've cleared off old business we will go straight into uh new

business so this is special exception 25-01 Ray skilman Automotive of Avon a second I don't know why it's not hold up I'm gonna can we take a brief recess so I can mute the mic absolutely thank you back online okay thank you you may continue okay the first case is uh ESS 2501 which is uh Ray skilman special exception to provide for a Auto Sales

facility with Leasing and service it is at the south east corner of County Road 900 as well and US 36 uh the overall track is uh over 27 Acres um they have a p a plat pending to split out their parcel of land which would be 6.11 Acres this this is um kind of zoomed out intentionally the subject sites here in white and then the other dealerships um along along here is what we're going to I'm going to be pointing to so that's why this this aerial photo a little bit zoomed out this is the subject site move to the back here the overall 27 acres is this larger parcel here which I believe the petitioners um uh presentation will show that a little bit better there's some history to this site uh in 2015 they received a special exception for the same uh same use and also a variance of development standards um to allow them to exceed the maximum setback in tier one as well as the um two rows of parking in the front which is the subject of the two variances you're going to hear next they were all approved approved in 2015 by this board um but they have expired because they were not uh construction didn't commence within one year this was the site plan back in 2015 so it showed two main dealerships here and another small building here I'm not sure if that was a dealership then it showed another building back here this is the existing Collision Center down here what we're

speaking about today is is these two building like lot one two and four so I'm kind of outlining it there out of that 2015 site and that is what this is um a standard dealership with um quite a bit of parking for display sales um similar to the layout they had in 2015 uh the site did have another some more zoning history that I did not include from 2008 which was for a auto or Car Wash it's called Lucas Oil Car Wash and it was also approved but again construction never happened um staff's review of this is we found that the uh us36 Corridor is the primary location for Auto Sales Leasing and service within the town this would be a logical expansion of Auto Sales along us36 the Udo indicates that the auto sales should be in the US 36 quarter where the comp plan says area retail and this map and it's kind of hard to see on the side screen a little bit better on the screen behind you shows the comp plan and the area retail is to the East and Northeast or sorry to the West and Northwest of the subject site so this this is the subject site here and this orangey blob is the area retail from the comp plan um then this site does not have any recommendation per se this is a the the only other nearby category being well Wellness uh the comp plan does say that logical expansions to that area

retail were permitted and as well as expected when reviewing this so the the area area shown as the cluster of orange should not be taken literally but could be expanded if needed and we believe that this is a logical expansion of that area retail there are four required findings for a special exception and then three additional findings um that you traditionally see for a commercial special exception these are the first four that it not be detrimental to the public health safety or general welfare not injurious injurious to the use of and enjoyment of adjacent Properties or diminish their values adequately serve public facility it's adequately served by public facilities highways streets police fire not create additional public expense for public facilities or be detrimental to economic welfare the area then the three optional findings meets the standards of the Udo which it does with the exception of the two variances you're going to be hearing next makes adequate Provisions for public services traffic control light air Recreation visual enjoyment and then it aligns with the general objectives to the comprehensive plan uh we do believe that the proposed use would not negatively impact the public or the surrounding neighborhood given that it would develop similar to the other developments in the area we do believe it would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the uh community at large that it meets the Udo with the exception of the two variances being considered tonight and previously granted to the site it's compatible with its surroundings and the comprehensive plan as a whole does

support commercial zoning of the site which it is zon so we are recommending approval of the special exception to have the Automotive Sales leasing service facility I'd be happy to answer any questions you have any questions for staff um it looks like there is a request to do something similar in 2015 is that correct and do we know why that didn't happen probably have to ask the petitioner that question okay but this property has been under ownership of fry skilman for this since 15 yeah yeah okay anything else from staff we right here from petitioner good evening good evening hopefully what you answer okay thank you can you point that way not okay good evening uh my name's Derek Snider I'm with Crossroad Engineers 115 North 17th Avenue Beach Grove Indiana 46107 uh I'm here on behalf of Ray Gilman Automotive I'm joined tonight by Justin Bunty with Ray Gilman Automotive um I can U I'd be happy to answer uh question from the bza or I can go ahead and run through my presentation real quick I don't have a preference as to which you would prefer me to do first please run through your presentation okay thank you

okay thank you okay so uh again uh my name is Derrick Snider with Crossroad Engineers are here on behalf of Ray Gilman Automotive uh thank you Linda for um going through the staff report I will U attempt to get the slides to oh there we go yeah I think so no you're fine I'm probably clicking one too many [Laughter] times okay uh so to give you kind of a a broader overview uh the the property is located on us36 in between County Road 800 East and Rod Reagan Parkway on the south side of us36 more specifically it is at the southeast corner of us36 in County Road 900 East as you can see um the entire property um there's a uh primary plat that has been submitted and is pending review the entire property that would be the ray skilman Automotive of Avon commercial subdivision is outlined in yellow the property uh is zoned C2 it is also located within the us36 overlay uh within tiers one two and three uh for the entire property the uh current land use adjacent to the property obviously to the West all the way from County Road 900 to um I can't think of what the next street to the West is it's kind of slipping my mind uh but obviously there are uh six auto dealerships uh in that area we have

the hair Honda the race Gilman hondai uh and then several andym more dealerships um directly to the East is uh some commercial Waffle House um and to the north is commercial as well the um sketch plan submitted as part of this special exception as you can see the um special exception would apply to lot one which would be a Mazda dealership the remainder of the commercial subdivision which again that primary plat has been submitted and is pened uh review would consist of lot two which is the existing Collision Center located on the south side of the property uh and then blocks A and B which would be uh undeveloped and could be developed in the future uh I'm going to skip ahead because this is for the variances uh but to give you a better idea um as I said the adjacent properties are all at least all the properties to the West uh in the immediate vicinity are all car dealerships we have the Andy Moore Toyota Andy Moore Avon Nissa race Gilman Avon hondai and then further west there's um the hair Honda um and if you would like I can go ahead and answer the bza question concerning um the 2015 petition uh so actually uh shortly after the uh construction plans primary plat all of the approvals were obtained for the what was known at the time as the race Gilman Avon auto mall shortly after those approvals the property that uh now contains the race Gilman hondai further

to the West on us36 actually became available for purchase uh and race Gilman group had decided at that time that um it it was in their interest to purchase that property and build the hondai dealership on that piece of land as opposed to moving forward with the two dealerships that were originally proposed for this site so um that's essentially what led to um construction not beginning on on the dealerships that were previously approved at this location and it has remained in uh race Gilman ownership since that time so I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have before we get into questions let's go ahead and open up the public hearing it is 652 is anyone signed up to speak there is not anyone to speak would anyone care to speak on this case and with no one coming forward we will close the public hearing at 652 we'll open it up for questions so just follow up um that race Gilman group sorry that's not the right name but um had planned to do development there to begin with 2015 correct I think we heard this um been around for a while way back then so it's good to know that I was wondering why they did the Hyundai not doing this area so this is really moving forward on those original plans at this time yes I

think if I recall correctly it's 10 years so uh I believe at that time there was the hondai which was to be located on the lot that is currently being considered now and then the Mazda would be on the lot to the east of there so they built hondai further to the west and now the Mazda has basically shifted to this lot for the for consideration yeah and the Collision Center would remain as is the um setback at 250 ft uh from the front of the building is that about what the Hy end dealership is uh yes so um all of the dealerships and actually the the image on the screen now is a pretty good indicator U you can kind of tell that all of the dealerships kind of fall in that similar um alignment but these were obviously done prior to the new Udo correct no the many of them have the same variance okay so they had so the variances were granted at that time for those yes as well okay thank you yeah I think the the us36 overlay was still in effect maybe not the U the Udo maybe had not been adopted but the overlay District that uh requires the that creates the need for the variances for this site was uh in effect at the time those other dealerships were developed I believe

any other discussion okay there's no other discussion we'll rain a motion I'll make a motion um and before I make a motion I would just on add that I do agree with uh staff's report as far as their determination about the Criterion and their um support agreement that this meets the Criterion that we consider so I'll move that we approve SE 2501 race kilman Automotive of Avon Auto Sales in tier one of the US 36 overlay Southeast corner of US Highway 36 and County Road 900 East I'll second motion with motion by Mr gken Berger and second by Mrs Inman is there any discussion we'll have a roll call vote please Goen bger four edman four ransburg four tasler four Turner four we'll move on to the variant this is 24-0 I'm sorry 25-01 race Gilman Automotive ofon for

okay this is same site same location this is for two variances of development standards and I'm going to discuss them kind of interchangeably because they are intended to essentially regulate the same requirement which the um the Udo in the over the us36 overlay has a maximum setback requirement of 125 ft in tier one they are proposing um 250t front setback and then there's a limitation on six rows of parking in front of the building or there's a limitation of two rows of parking in front of the building when they would like to have six um again the same location this is the map I wanted to get back to to show you the line of dealerships which you've already kind of pointed out um with the first discussion um the Lo the setback requirement went into place in ' 08 and these I believe all of them have the same variants two buildings across the street being Bubbas and the uh multitenant one AC next to Bubbas both have the same variance there are two that are set back over here in Eden gate uh subdivision but they were done uh prior to the 36 overlay um the tier one as you could see on the petitioners representative's map Falls right in here somewhere there's a little yellow line and so it's only tier one which is the the grass open space area in the north side of the lot that requires that two row requirement and the maximum building setback it does not require it if you're in tier two which is kind of down here where the building is so if I go to their site plan tier one just hits the front of the building ever so slightly so ironically if they moved it further

south they wouldn't need the variant for the setback because it's not required in tier two so if they could get the building completely out of tier two the the setback requirement wouldn't apply but this is just it to match it with the rest of the dealerships which also have the same variants um the request is to have partially in tier one uh we did deter or we did look at the findings um again the two separate variances the property is Zone C2 the use is permitted but the ordinance requirement of only having two rows of parking in the front is to con guide where parking is for standard commercial establishments so restaurants Office Buildings banks that sort of thing and their accessory parking it does not Envision the primary use of automobile display when making that setback requirement and that two row parking requirement so we think that there is a practical difficulty with meeting the ordinance and that it doesn't allow as much parking as as needed for this type of business which is a permitted use in this District the ordinance does call out outdoor display and says that it doesn't have to meet traditional elements of parking spaces so it doesn't have to meet size or they can like tandem St stack uh cars for display or however they want to store them but it doesn't call out that the parking in front of the building is not parking or doesn't qualify you to not have to meet the maximum setback so we do believe that this

business as well as all the other ones that receive variances do have a issue meeting the setback and that they are required by nature to have large amounts of outdoor display and that needs to be up in front of the building and to be able to be seen from outside the property there are still three findings of fact required for a variance of development standards that it not be injurious to the public health safety and morals the use of the adjacent the use and value of the adjacent properties would not be affected and the strict application of the Udo would result in a practical difficulty in the use of the property and again we believe that the that there is um a practical difficulty in meeting that because the ordinance wouldn't allow them to display their merchandise as the adjacent properties do um the adjacent properties would not be affected in an adverse manner because they are developed in a similar manner um even the parking or the businesses to the South and to the East are Auto related uses and um that there would be no negative impact to the public or the surrounding Property Owners with an additional automobile business at this location so staff finds that the fundings effect would be met for both variances and recommends approval be happy to answer any questions you have may have questions for staff and with that we're right here from the petitioner thank you um again Derek

Snider Crossroad Engineers 115 North 17th Avenue Beach grob Indiana um thank you Linda uh for the favorable recommendation um as Linda had alluded to um the uh the proposed variances are both consistent with uh variances that have been granted for not only this property uh prior to the expiration of of those variances in 2015 but the the properties to the West which are all consistent with uh Automotive uh lease Sales and Service um the uh if you can go back maybe one slide I think we had there we go uh so we have kind of a zoomed in um view of that site plan that shows the setback so uh we're right about 235 feet um the request was for 250 to give us a little bit of wiggle room in the event that the building needed to shift here and there a little bit but uh generally speaking uh the setback and the maximum number of rows of parking in front would be consistent with adjacent properties and with the previously approved variances which have since expired um uh as uh Linda had alluded to the approval would not be injurious um because the increased amount of parking would have no negative impact um to vehicular sight lines or site distances um the parking configuration is nearly identical to the adjacent properties to the West the the use and value of the area adjacent would not be affected in substantially adverse manner because again um the adjacent properties are also within the us36 overlay uh and also exceed both the maximum front setback and the maximum number of parking spaces allowed and the strict application of the uh terms of the zoning ordinance

would constitute practical difficulty because it by Nature um auto dealerships U need to display their inventory uh and to do so the most effective way is to display it in front obviously limiting that ability would severely hamper the their um opportunity to operate this site uh as a auto dealership uh so uh for those reasons in instances uh excuse me for both variances uh we believe that the uh statutory criteria have been met and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have before we get out questions we're ahead and open the public hearing at 706 has anyone signed up there is not would anyone like to speak and with no one coming forward we'll close public hearing 706 questions comments discussion just so a comment I guess um and I do agree with what the staff's report as far as their evaluation of the variances here and primarily because when this was originally brought forward here and even though the comp plan Circle doesn't Encompass this there we ra basically we're looking at automobile dealerships in that area um and to keep them in 36 and there's a lot of discussion around that so there's an expectation that race Gan was going to build back in 2015 and it didn't happen you on this property here so I I think it's consistent with even though I believe no one case that's a precedent for any follow-on case that it's still its consistent design with the setback and we have a uniform look there with the same number of uh parking rows as the rest of the car

dealership so it makes it consistent there you know I think what we've heard we may expect to see another one of these cases come forward for the lots to East to this I just I think it's what we expected and it's consistent with that as well as it meets the Criterion I do agree with the Practical difficulty as staff has put forward on this and I also agree the location of the property itself lends to approval in my opinion if this was half a mile down the road away from all of the where we have the automobile dealership clusters um I think you'd have a much harder sell but because this is a natural extension of what is already happening on 36 um it it I I think that staff's recommendations um make sense I'm generally in agreement with the with the staff report and if we're going to have this type of use on 36 it makes sense to have them clustered um as far as the the Practical difficulty under criteria three I I do kind of cringe at the Practical difficulty being centered around uh displaying of outdoor door inventory that that gives me a little pause however I I would note that there are six auto dealerships along five or six auto dealerships along the trip that are all configured in the same manner and uh to to not allow this would probably put these guys at a competitive disadvantage so there is most definitely a a um practical difficulty in the use of the property have a question as far as uh the Motions do we need to have separate motions for

the variance there's variance say and the variance be um in one motion Encompass both or does it need to be separate motions you can do a motion for both okay in that case I move that we approve V 2501 race skilman Automotive Avon variance a and v 2501 race Gelman Automotive of Avon variance b a variance of development standards to allow for a actually I'm going to do these separately um I approve that we I move that we approve V 2501 race Gelman Automotive of Avon variance a a variance of development standards to allow for a 250 foot front building setback where maximum 125 foot setback is permitted because it will meet all the requirements for a variance of development standards and the state law subject to the approved finings of fact second a motion by Mrs ransburg and second by Mr gber is there any discussion roll call vote please goodenberger four enman four ransburg four tasher four Turner four I move that we approve V 2501 race skilman Automotive Avon variance b a variance of development standards to allow for six rows of parking in front of the building where a maximum of two rows is permitted because it will meet all of the requirements for a variance of development standards under state law and subject to the approved findings fact motion by Mrs ransburg is our second I'll second second by Mrs Tash

any discussion roll call vote please goodenberger for enman for ransburg for tler four Turner four thank you thank you do we have any other business uh I just want to let you know that the additional two findings of fact were introduced to Town Council for the ordinance change it'll be going to Planning Commission on Monday so next month you will see those additional two Varian well after next month we have to get them back in the application but they'll be coming before you fantastic okay anything else and with that we are adjourned thank you thank you