HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 02-26-96 CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
FEBRUARY 26, 1996
The meeting was called to order by the President in Council Chambers, One Civic Square,
Carmel, Indiana, at approximately 7:00 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members present were as follows: Mary Ann Burke; Dick Klar; Earlene Plavchak; and Charles
Weinkau£
A quorum was declared.
Also present were Mike Hollibaugh, Terry Jones, and Mark Monroe of the Department of
Community Services, and John Molitor, Outside Counsel for the City of Carmel.
The minutes of the January 22, 1996 meeting were approved with correction as noted.
G. Reports, Announcements and Staff Concerns
Mark Monroe reported the tabling of certain items and asked that the Board consider re-ordering
the Agenda to allow Monro Muffler and Brake Shop an opportunity to explain the reason for
tabling.
Dick Klar moved to re-order the Agenda so that item 15h., Monro Muffler and Brake Shop (SU-
23-96) could be heard first, seconded by Mary Ann Burke, all in favor.
H. PUBLIC HEARING:
15h. Monro Muffler and Brake Shop (SU-23-96)
Petitioner seeks special use approval to construct a 5,000 square feet muffler and brake
shop. The site is located within the existing parking lot of the "Old Kroger" Shopping
Center. The site is zoned B-3/Business.
Filed by Monro Muffler.
George Jarrett appeared before the Board representing Monroe Muffler. Mr. Jarrett reported that
the property owner was unable to attend this evening's meeting, and respectfully requested that
this item be tabled until the March meeting.
Charles Weinkauf moved to allow Monro Muffler and Brake Shop to be tabled until the March
meeting, seconded by Dick Klar, all in favor.
lh. Tom Wood Range Rover (SU-2-96)
Petitioner seeks special use approval to construct a 9,000 square feet auto dealership. The
1
site is located within the Bauer Commercial Park on he southeast corner of Marie Drive
and Bauer Drive West. The site is zoned B-3/Business.
Filed by Larry Lawhead of Johnson, Hall, and Lawhead.
TABLED UNTIL MARCH
NOTE: Items 2h. and 3h. were heard together but voted on separately.
2h Carmel Portrait Studio (UV-10-96)
Petitioner seeks a use variance to operate a portrait studio within an existing house. The
site is located at 531 North Rangeline Rod. The site is zoned B-5/Business.
Filed by Tim Stevens of Land Rush Development Services.
3h. Carmel Portrait Studio (V-10-96)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 27.3.2 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
construct a parking lot for the studio without curbing. The site is located at 531 North
Rangeline Road. The site is zoned B-5/Business.
Filed by Tim Stevens of Land Rush Development Services.
Tim Stevens, Vice President of Land Rush Development Services, 970 Logan Street, Noblesville,
Indiana, appeared before the Board on behalf of Tim and Marie Moorecroft, also present.
Approval is being sought for a land use variance to allow the petitioner to operate a portrait
studio within the B-5 zoning classification and a variance from the requirement for curbing in a
commercial parking lot.
The subject property is surrounded by residential to the east; an apartment building to the south;
to the north is an existing business, a beauty salon which was converted from a residence; and to
the west is a barber shop, church, and a variety of single family residences. A photographic studio
is a specific use listed within other land use classifications. It is perceived to be similar in use and
intensity to those uses listed as permitted in the B-5 District, which is primarily an office district.
The Moorecrofts would not be doing photographic processing or developing on site, but would
be using the property as a photographic studio for the posing and taking of individual and group
photographs.
The curbing variance is being requested because curbs are not needed for drainage; and lack of
curbing would preserve the residential character of the property. A small sign will be visible from
the front yard. The petitioner will be installing a row of landscape shrubs on the south property
line in order to screen the parking from the neighboring residences; there is an existing row of
evergreens and additional tree plantings will be added to the rear yard.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
2
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval as submitted. The
Department has met with the petitioner in order to resolve some landscape issues. Approval is
recommended for the use variance as well as approval for the variance for curbing due to the fact
that it is in keeping with the residential character of the area. Mark Monroe also reported that in
the future, the Department will recommend that these types of petitions be processed as Rezone
Applications rather than Use Variances; rezones go before the Plan Commission and City Council
for approval.
Dick Klar moved for approval of Carmel Portrait Studio (UV-10-96), seconded by Charles
Weinkau£ The vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
Dick Klar moved for approval of Carmel Portrait Studio (V-10-96), seconded by Mary Ann
Burke. The vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
4h. Brad and Janet Rogers (V-12-96)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 26.2.19 (3) of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
keep an existing house that encroaches over the front yard setback line by 3.5 feet. The
site is located at 15 Bexhill Drive (Lot 171, Harrowgate Subdivision.) The site is zoned
R-2/Residential.
Filed by Brad and Janet Rogers.
Brad and Janet Rogers, 15 Bexhill Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board requesting a
variance for an existing house that encroaches over the front yard setback line by 3.5 feet. The
home was built over 30 years ago and the encroachment was brought to light in conjunction with
a pending sale of the property.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the variance; none appeared
and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval as submitted.
Dick Klar moved for the approval of V-12-96, variance for Brad and Janet Rogers, seconded by
Charles Weinkau£ The vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
5h. Sheplock/Morton (V-13-96)
Petitioner seeks a variance of Section 5.4.2 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance to keep an
existing house that encroaches over the front yard setback by 2.5 feet. The petitioner also
seeks a variance of Section 5.4.3 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to keep an existing
house that encroaches over the side yard setback by 1.3 feet. The site is located at 10646
Jewel Lane (Lot 38, Kingsmill Subdivision.) The site is zoned S-1/Residential.
Filed by David Morton.
David Morton, Builder, 11277 Williams Court, Carmel, and George Sheplock, 5903 Wycombe
3
Lane, Indianapolis 46270, owner of the home located at 10646 Jewel Lane, Carmel, appeared
before the Board seeking a variance for an existing home which encroaches on the front yard by
2.5 feet and side yard by 1.3 feet.
Mr. Morton gave an overview of the home which is situated on a curve of Jewel Lane, and
displayed a diagram of the plot plan. The side yard aggregate requirement is 10 feet, as-built is 8
feet, 9 inches; to the front, the house is at 37.5 feet to the curb easement to the street (47.5 feet).
The two homes are at an aggregate distance of 28 feet 9 inches apart which is in excess of 20 feet
to either side. To the south, the home is approximately 19 feet 9 inches from the property line,
the home in question is approximately 8 feet, nine inches from the property line, or an aggregate
of 28 feet, 6 inches.
Mr. Morton stated that the granting of the variance would not be injurious because the limited
degree of encroachment of the side and front setback will not diminish the public or private use of
the adjoining properties, and the public and private access to the easements has not been
restricted. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
be affected in a substantial, adverse manner because the setbacks, infractions and uses do not
affect the adjacent properties, and there is no substantial, adverse impact on either home value.
Mr. Morton felt that the general public would not likely notice either encroachment, and stated
that this was supported in discussions with other developers, homeowners, and other industry
professionals.
Mr. Morton maintained that the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to the
property would result in practical difficulties in use of the property. The home would be required
to either be repositioned or rebuilt, and at the current stage of construction, it cannot be
repositioned and rebuilding the garage area would severely reduce its use and function, i.e.
reducing the garage from space for three cars to two cars.
Mr. Morton stated that at the time the encroachment became apparent, he had met with the
property owner to the south, the owner felt to be most affected, and reviewed the plot plan and
discussed the magnitude of the situation. The subject property was graded three to four feet over
the property line which made the encroachment appear worse. Mr. Morton stated that at the time
of discussion (December 4th) with the adjoining property owner, it was not felt that the home to
the south was greatly affected in a material manner, and it was decided that the homeowner to the
south would be provided with an evergreen tree and landscaping between the two homes would
be discussed in order to alleviate the situation. Mr. Morton stated that he also advised the
homeowner to the north that he would be filing for a variance and the general purport of the
discussion had been put in form of a letter agreement.
Mr. Morton stated that on January 14th, he had a second meeting with the homeowner to the
south and indicated to them that they had filed for a variance. The homeowner then made it
known that they were no longer supporting the variance being requested. At the time the
encroachment was discovered, the first floor walls of the house had been framed, the foundation
4
was in for the house and garage, and first floor walls around the entire area were up. When the
request for variance was filed January 1 lth, all of the walls were up and the roof decking was on,
and construction was proceeding pursuant to agreement. Currently, the home is still at framing;
the balance of the house has been continued; however construction has been halted in the affected
area pending the outcome of the variance request. The brick has been held back, roofing has
stopped, and a garage floor has not yet been poured.
Mr. Morton stated that the encroachment does not block the view of any neighborhood homes
nor does it block the view from any neighborhood home. Mr. Morton distributed photographs of
the front of the home and the relationship to the street and adjoining homes.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the requested variance; none appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the requested variance; the
following appeared:
Linda Byers, 10640 Jewel Lane, adjacent property owner to the lot in question, voiced opposition
to the variance and was supported by a number of Kingsmill Subdivision Homeowners. Ms.
Byers stated that the situation extends beyond the setbacks, not only for the Zoning Ordinances,
but also for the Kingsmill Homeowner's Covenants and Restrictions. To allow the variance would
require an amendment to the Homeowner's Covenants and Ms. Byers stated that that is no longer
a viable option to the developer but rather a two-thirds vote of the Class A members.
Communication was made to the builder and developer on November 28 and 29, in which the
encroachment error was pointed out; this was done prior to any framing and at a time when it was
simply the concrete garage footings and the very early stages of construction.
Ms. Byers pointed out that if the correction had been made in the original time period when the
error was pointed out, the cost of changing the footings would have been less than $1,000. Ms.
Byers commented that had the house been properly been positioned on the lot, there would have
easily been 18 feet on the side in question, not 8.7 feet; this was pointed out to the builder in a
discussion in early December, and again when Mr. Morton stated his intent to proceed with the
variance. Ms. Byers stated that she had contacted the Department of Community Services on
January 4th, and this was the first contact the Department had received on the situation; the
Department then followed up with the builder.
Ms. Byers stated that of the 25% homes completed within the Kingsmill Subdivision at this time,
100% of them had complied with the Carmel Zoning Ordinances and the building covenants. Ms.
Byers stated that she had a petition signed by at least 14 homeowners in support of denying the
variance. The obvious encroachment has been noted not only by builders, but realtors and
homeowners who have visited the Byers' home. In working with an architect, it was shown that
the house can be built with a three car garage and fit within the Zoning Requirements. Ms. Byers
also referred to a quote made in the Carmel 2020 Vision Document: " .....that we need to ensure
the stability of neighborhoods through Code Enforcement."
5
Ms. Byers stated her opposition to the requested variances as referred to above and reiterated the
support of 14 neighborhood homeowners in the opposition.
Mr. Morton stated that an exemption could be and has been granted to the Homeowner's
Covenants, and that no vote is needed from the homeowners at this point. At the point in time of
construction when the encroachment was first addressed, the structure was beyond foundation
and the cost to move would be substantially more than the $1,000. previously indicated. The
house was situated toward one side of the lot to take advantage of the views across the back. Mr.
Morton stated he had met the first possible deadline on December 4th with the homeowner; the
next possible filing date was December 7th and there was not adequate time to make proper filing.
Mr. Morton stated that the garage will not accommodate three, full size vehicles and his
contracted homeowner has need of a full size, three car garage; to construct anything less would
be a hardship on the homeowner and a hardship if the variance were not granted.
Mark Monroe reported the Department's position which was not in support of the requested
variances. It would not be common for a variance request to be reviewed by the Technical
Advisory Committee.
Robert Hicks, 10677 Crown Court, Carmel, stated that he had missed the opportunity to speak in
favor of the variance and wished to do so at this point; the opportunity was granted. Mr. Hicks
said he was one of the first homebuyers in Kingsmill Subdivision. Mr. Hicks had looked at the
house under construction from the outside and throughout the interior; to cut the house back at
this point was felt to impair the value of the home and detract from the value of the other homes
in the subdivision. Mr. Hicks was not in support of reducing the garage area, and wanted a
remedy to the situation as is. Mr. Hicks recommended installing trees to soften the encroachment
and he was in favor of granting the variance.
Linda Byers commented that landscaping clearly does not solve the problem, and if anything,
allows the builder the opportunity to expand the appearance of the size of the yard and
downscales the appearance of the size of her yard. Landscaping was not deemed to be a viable
option. Ms. Byers also commented that Mr. Morton had led her to believe that the variance was
an "automatic" and not a big concern. The time for amending the covenants expired December
31, 1995, and any changes had to have been recorded with Hamilton County and were not; at this
time, the attorney for the homeowners association has stated that the variances would require an
amendment to the covenants and by doing so, would open the door for any number of persons to
also building within the setbacks and easements.
The public hearing was then closed.
Charles Weinkauf questioned the applicant regarding the square footage of the garage; the timing
of construction; inspections from the Department; and why the problem was not corrected when
the violation was first noted in November rather than proceeding with the construction. Mr.
Weinkauf took exception to comments that the variance was an "automatic."
6
Mr. Morton stated that the timing sequence was not correct and that he had been on vacation and
the matter did not come to his attention until December 4th, at which time he met with the
homeowner involved to address the situation. Mr. Morton denied indicating that the variance was
an automatic. According to Mr. Morton, construction has stopped on the garage area; however,
Mr. Morton stated that he was under contract to the homebuyer to complete, and continued
constructing the balance of the home. Mr. Morton stated that there was an error made on the
part of the engineering firm at the time of staking.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department was not in support of the variance as proposed
because of the zoning ordinance requirement for setback--initially there was ample room to
comply with the ordinance requirements in the positioning of the house on the lot; also the
problem could have been corrected at the footing stage when the violation was first noted in
December. The time is now three months later, and the situation has still not been corrected.
John Molitor clarified the Findings of Fact for the Board on each of the three specified points in
the Statute and Ordinance.
After much discussion, Dick Klar moved for the approval of Docket No. V-13-96, Sheplock/
Morton, seconded by Charles Weinkau£ The vote was 0 in favor, Mary Ann Burke, Dick Klar,
Earlene Plavchak, and Charles Weinkauf against; MOTION DENIED.
I lh. Parks at Weston Amenity Area(SU-19-96)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to construct a private recreational facility within the
Parks at Weston Subdivision. The site is located at the southeast corner of Weston Drive
and Independence Way. The site is zoned S-1/Residential.
Filed by Steve Ranshaw of Estridge Development.
Steve Ranshaw, project manager of Estridge Development, 1041 West Main Street, Carmel,
appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Approval is being sought for a private
recreational facility within the Parks at Weston Subdivision which is located in the northeast
corner of 106th Street and Michigan Road (US 421).
The recreational facility will be located at the corner of Weston Drive (the main entrance) and
Independence Way and consist of a parking area, swimming pool, wading pool, pool building to
include a ladies and mens restrooms and mechanical room, two small basketball courts and a
tennis court. A landscape plan has been submitted to the Department of Community Services and
has been found agreeable; the project has gone before the Technical Advisory Committee and all
concerns have been addressed.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval as submitted. The
7
landscape plan has been approved by the Department and concerns of the Technical Advisory
Committee have been addressed.
Dick Klar moved to approve SU-19-96, seconded by Mary Ann Burke. The vote was four in
favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
NOTE: Items 12h. and 13h. were heard together but voted on separately.
12h. Pembroke Place (V-20-96)
Petitioner seeks approval of Section 27.5 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to reduce
the required number of parking spaces from 16 to 11 spaces. The site is located at 1039
South Rangeline Road. The site is zoned B-7/Business.
Filed by Mark Boyce and Steve Pittman.
13h. Pembroke Place (B-21-96)
Petitioner seeks approval of Section 18.4.7 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to
reduce the required area for a dwelling unit from 5,000 square feet to 3,125 square feet.
The site is located at 1039 South Rangeline Road. The site is zoned B-7/Business.
Filed by Mark Boyce and Steve Pittman.
Mark Boyce and Steve Pittman of Pembroke Place LLC appeared before the Board representing
the applicant. A detailed Development Plan is being presented for an 8 unit apartment building
designed for independent living, empty nesters, and senior citizens. A multi-family dwelling such
as the one proposed is among the 60 permitted uses in the B-7/Business classification.
Pursuant to the requirements of B-7/Business, multi-family developments are to provide 5,000
square feet of lot area per each unit. Pembroke Place is located on a lot of 25,000 square feet
which would allow for five multi-family units. The first variance being requested is for a
reduction in the minimum lot area per unit to allow the 8 units of Pembroke Place.
The B-7/Business district also requires that multi-family developments provide for two parking
spaces per unit; this is interpreted to mean two open parking spaces per unit or 16 open parking
spaces for the 8 units. The plan for Pembroke Place includes a total of 19 parking spaces: 8
covered garage spaces and 11 spaces in the open. The variance request is to allow for the garage
spaces to count toward the total parking requirement.
Mr. Boyce presented an aerial view of the site and surrounding area; a description of area
demographics and the target market; a summary of the site development and landscape plan; and a
brief review of the building architecture and materials. The most prominent feature of the
neighborhood is Carmel's Civic Square Complex of Georgian architecture similar to that found in
colonial Williamsburg. The site is unique in regard to its proximity to both retail and civic
amenities. According to a demographic analysis, 37% of the population is age 50 and over; 46%
of the households are renters rather than owners; 38% of the households own one or no
8
automobiles, hence the request for the variance regarding parking. It is felt that this property
offers a unique opportunity to serve Carmel empty-nesters and retirees that seek to continue an
independent lifestyle and desire maintenance free housing.
The plan for this property which was approved in 1994 provided for a commercial bed and
breakfast with 10 units and a building of approximately 9,000 square feet and was to have been
known as "Ashmore House." The scale of the previously approved building was felt to be
evidence that the proposed plan and variance requests are reasonable.
Vehicle access is from an existing curb cut on Rangeline Road at the southwest corner of the
property. There are a total of 19 parking spaces on the plan, 11 uncovered spaces, one space to
include handicap access; a garage to accommodate 8 cars, and 8 secure storage spaces of 8X10
feet. It is anticipated that the target market typically has one car per household and supported by
the area demographics study.
The site benefits from a large number of mature trees, most of which are located in the northwest
corner of the property. The building layout and site plan preserves approximately 30 trees which
will serve as the main landscaping for Pembroke Place. There will be an outdoor seating area for
residents in the front garden as well as the southeast corner of the building. There will also be a
six foot high, decorative wood fence along the south property line to tie into the fencing of the
adjoining residence. The garage storage building provides an effective buffer to the east and is set
back 30 feet from the property line. The trash area will be enclosed. Site lighting includes the
existing street light on Rangeline Road as well as building mounted coach lights at the entrance.
The signage is very simple, 5 feet tall, and will not be illuminated.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe reported that the Department is not offering either a favorable or negative
recommendation on the proposed project. Mr. Monroe clarified the variance for the parking
request: most enclosed garages in a multi family complex have been used as storage facilities
rather than parking spaces for cars; this is the reason for the variance request for the number of
parking spaces. The applicant has provided 100 square feet of storage per enclosed garage space.
In regard to the second variance to reduce the required area for a dwelling unit, a lot 40,000
square feet would be required in order to accommodate a complex of eight units. Currently, per
the lot size, the applicant is allowed five units of approximately 5,00 square feet each.
Mark Monroe stated that there is also an issue of landscaping and development plan which is
currently before the Plan Commission.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
9
Mr. Weinkauf had questions regarding a single entry unit, and asked for comments regarding
storage in enclosed garage areas as opposed to storing cars in garages.
Mr. Boyce stated that the target market typically has only one car per household;private storage
has been provided in areas connected to the garage, and under the stairways in the corridor of the
buildings. The applicant stated a willingness to provide a commitment in the form of a restriction
on the garages that they could not be used for anything other than the parking of vehicles. The
floor plan of the units complies with all codes.
Mark Monroe of the Department responded that the only problem with a commitment regarding
the use of the garages is the difficulty of enforcement. Mr. Boyce suggested that the condition be
included as a part of the lease.
Charles Weinkauf moved for the approval of Docket No. V-20-96, Pembroke Place, seconded by
Dick Klar. The vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
Charles Weinkauf moved for the approval of Docket No. V-21-96, Pembroke Place, seconded by
Dick Klar. The vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
14h. Marsh Day Care (SU-22-96)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to use an existing vacant space as a day care center.
The site is located in the existing vacant portion of the Marsh Supermarkets building on
the north side of Carmel Drive at the intersection of AAA Way. The site is zoned B-
8/Business.
Filed by Jon Byrum of Byrum Architects.
Jon Byrum, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 770, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board
representing Marsh Supermarkets. A limited Power of Attorney granted by Mundy Realty, a
subsidiary of Marsh Supermarkets, has been furnished to the Department and to each Board
member in an information packet. Also in attendance was Steve Fehribach of A & F Engineering.
The property is located at 508 East Carmel Drive, immediately adjacent to the existing Marsh
Store (vacated drug store space.) Mundy Realty owns this parcel(1.342 acres) which is zoned B-
8, as well as the adjacent property to the east and south. There is an existing apartment building
to the north (R-2) and to the west of the Marsh Center is R-4/Residential zoning.
There is no change in topography; sidewalks to be added will be at the new, proposed entry at the
southeast corner of the building. Part of the sidewalk will also include a ramp for access. The
outdoor play areas of the building are located north and east of the building. The parking
arrangement has not been changed with the exception of eliminating spaces that were immediately
east of the building in order to add to the space for an outdoor activity/play area; a portion of the
east parking has been re-striped for parallel parking. The parking requirement is 42 spaces, and
42 are provided. The building height is not changed.
10
Setbacks are a major issue; however, the issues of side yard setback and frontage on Carmel Drive
will not be addressed this evening. The Marsh parcel was subdivided and sold approximately two
years ago; Mundy Realty retained ownership of the drugstore parcel and a company in New York
owns the supermarket parcel. March is leasing the space through the year 3002, and they have 35
years in options. Access to the site is by way of an ingress easement.
In regard to the Special Use, the petitioner is proposing to screen an existing dumpster as part of
the fencing around the outdoor play area. Landscaping will consist of six moonglow junipers
along the south edge of the east outdoor play area near the entry. No changes are being made to
the site utilities. The current signage will be removed and none will be installed to take its place.
An entry will be added to the corner of the building, facing east. Two triangular-shaped
projections will be installed that are in keeping with the architectural style of the supermarket.
The applicant wishes to maintain the business appearance of the south facade from Carmel Drive
so that the building appears to be all supermarket.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Mark Monroe spoke for the Department which is recommending approval of the special use
application as presented. There are two variances required because the day care is a separate
parcel from the overall part known as Marsh Plaza; this has created two zoning infractions: one
being the setback requirement, the other is that all lots are required to be on or have some type of
frontage on a public street. The item being reviewed this evening is only the Special Use for a
Day Care center and whether or not the use is appropriate in a B-8 Business district.
Mary Ann Burke expressed concern with the use in an already heavy traffic area.
Steve Fehribach of A&F Engineering, Co. stated that a comparison had been made between the
existing use drug store and the day care as proposed. A drug store would generate 118 trips per
hour; a day care would generate 93 trips. A level of service analysis was done at the intersection
of AAA Way and Carmel Drive which indicates a B, acceptable level of service. The signal can
accommodate traffic with an acceptable level of service. Mr. Fehribach agreed that there is delay
in service on Carmel Drive between 4 and 5 PM, but it is not caused by the drug store or day care
use.
Charles Weinkauf questioned the traffic flow pattern of delivery trucks from the west side to the
east in relation to the closeness of the dropoff/pickup area, and related safety factor in relation to
the outdoor play area of the day care center.
Mr. Byrum responded that there is no actual dropoff or pickup without a parent actually escorting
a child into the facility. Most truck delivery traffic is very early in the morning and most trucks
would be out of the area by the time the day care would be opening. The day care center is
strictly for Marsh and Village Pantry Employees on the north side and close proximity, including
11
Marsh corporate headquarters in Fishers, the Westfield Marsh store No. 80, and Carmel Marsh
store No. 28, and limited mostly to shift work.
Earlene Plavchak asked Mr. Fehribach if the traffic analysis revealed the kind of truck traffic
generated, the times of day, and the number of trucks; Mr. Fehribach responded that he had not
looked for this specific information regarding internal truck traffic around the supermarket.
In response to questions from Ms. Plavchak, Mr. Byrum thought that the hours of operation for
the day care would be 6:00 AM to 8:30 PM, although no set times had been determined.
Mark Monroe commented that the Board might suggest that the parking plan be revised so that
when a parent drops off or picks up a child, they would not have to cross in the pathway of
trucks;perhaps place parking spaces closer to the building.
Charles Weinkauf moved to table Marsh Day Care (SU-22-96, until the March meeting, seconded
by Dick Klar. The vote was four in favor, none opposed, MOTION APPROVED.
John Molitor explained to the Board the Findings of Fact which the members had filled out on
item 5h.
Mark Monroe advised the Board that the regularly scheduled meeting for May falls on a holiday.
Charles Weinkauf moved to reschedule the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in May to May 28,
seconded by Dick Klar, MOTION APPROVED by unanimous consent.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary Earlene Plavchak, President
12