The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals and Advisory Plan Commission heard two separate petitions regarding the 16-acre site of a proposed apartment complex at 374 N. Emerson Ave., near Indy South Greenwood Airport. The current proposal has approximately 300 units in four buildings.
SUBMITTED
A proposed apartment complex near Greenwood’s airport was back before city officials for a second time Monday night.
Indianapolis-based Muesing Management Company initially came before the Greenwood City Council in December, requesting to rezone 16 acres of farmland at 374 N. Emerson Ave. from industrial to multi-family residential for a five-building, four-story apartment complex with about 350 units. The city council voted 5-3 on the proposal, after several council members and residents voiced concerns about the location of the apartments and potential impacts on traffic. The land is bordered to the north and east by industrial-zoned land, the south by a residential subdivision, and the west by Indy South Greenwood Airport.
Muesing returned Monday with a new proposal, and asked the Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals to approve a use variance to build the apartments at the site without rezoning. The developer edited the plan slightly, removing a building, reducing the height of two buildings to three stories and reducing the number of units to 300, according to city documents.
The variance was needed because apartments may not be built on industrial-zoned land. The company said its plans would not adversely affect adjacent properties, but the site’s current industrial zoning would create an unusual hardship on the property because current zoning does not fit the site, city documents show.
City staff disagreed with Muesing’s claims and recommended denial of the variance because it failed to meet four of the five statutory criteria for variances. City staff also criticized Muesing for making inaccurate and misleading statements in its petition, including that the zoning ordinance is a “guide,” according to city documents.
“The zoning ordinance is not a ‘guide’ for development. The zoning ordinance establishes specific zones with specific standards to be met,” city staff said in their report.
Three city council members and two residents spoke out against the use variance Monday night. Council members Mike Campbell and David Hopper both questioned the developer’s decision to request a variance, saying it was an attempt to circumvent the council’s previous vote. Both voted in favor of the rezone in December.
Muesing representatives rebutted the council member’s accusations, saying they did not intend to go around the city council. They also said the owners of the land, who were in attendance at the BZA meeting, requested the variance because they hadn’t had attractive offers for it until recently.
The use variance failed in a 3-2 split vote, but discussion of the 16-acre plot of land didn’t end there. Directly following the BZA meeting, the Greenwood Advisory Plan Commission heard a proposal submitted on behalf of the city council to rezone the land to agricultural to prevent future industrial development on the site.
The land use listed in the city’s comprehensive plan is industrial, which matches the current zoning. However, Campbell said the council does not think the land should be zoned industrial, so council members decided to request the rezoning. There should be a buffer between the nearby neighborhood and industrial buildings, so they settled on agriculture, he said.
Since the land is currently being used as farmland, the rezone will match its current use, said Dale Davis, city planning director.
Two nearby residents and a city council member spoke in favor of the rezone during a public hearing.
Dwight Howard, whose property is adjacent to the proposed site, said it would be good for him and his neighbors if the city rezoned the land to agricultural.
City council member Linda Gibson, whose district includes the site, said changing the zoning would protect existing residents from industrial development. The owners of the site would still have the opportunity to request to rezone the land in the future, she said.
Muesing is under contract to buy and develop the land depending on the zoning change. Rezoning the land would stop the property owners, who are both widows, from selling off their husbands’ estates, said Arthur Mandelbaum, a representative for one of the property owners.
R. Lee Money, a representative for the other property owner, told the plan commission reducing the zoning classification in a highly commercialized area of Greenwood makes no sense, and would send a bad message to developers. The rezoning would cause the city harm, he said.
“What message does it send to developers, like the Muesing group, to say ‘Wait a minute, so you proposed something and we don’t like what you proposed, so now we’re gonna take away all of your ability to market this for commercial, industrial or residential (uses) by diminishing the value of farmland,’” Money said. “It’s been farmed, and I appreciate everybody wants a farm next to their house instead of a building, but that’s just not a reality with regard to Emerson Avenue.”
Muesing asked the commission to not double the burden on the property owners by involuntarily rezoning the land, saying the zoning ordinance is supposed to protect property owners. The rezoning would also hurt Muesing’s ability to get financing for the project, said Tom Vander Luitgaren, a Muesing representative.
A marketing specialist working with the landowners told the commission the rezoning would significantly decrease the value of the land, which is currently valued at about $188,000, on par for industrial-zoned land. Agricultural land tends to be valued between $1,800 an acre to $30,000 an acre, with $30,000 being a rarity, said Curtis Shaw, a marketing specialist for the landowners.
Plan commission members discussed the impacts of the rezoning requests. Commission member Brian Walker said he didn’t understand why the city would go all the way to agriculture for rezoning, and also questioned the city’s decision to rezone it.
“Maybe the project they put forward isn’t what you want from the city’s standpoint, but maybe another project is,” Walker said.
Commission president Trent Pohlar reminded the commission that all they could do was issue a recommendation to the city council, not approve or deny it.
After an initial motion to give a favorable recommendation failed, the commission voted on a second motion to issue no recommendation to the city council, which passed in a 5-4 split vote. The rezoning proposal now goes to the city council, where it will be introduced and go through two rounds of voting before a final decision is made. The proposal will likely be on the council’s agenda during its next meeting Feb. 7.
