HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 08-26-02 t'�yof CA4,
• A = City of C
4,,ro 101)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
Division of Planning &Zoning
August 21, 2002
Department Report
To: Board of Zoning Appeals Members
From: Department of Community Services
Re: Projects scheduled to be heard Monday, August 26, 2002
I. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Repo erns.
li. Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit Amen' Area(SU-13-00)
Department to update the Board on the st s of the Special Use oval granted July 24, 2000, per
Section 5.2:Permitted Special Uses in order to ablish a ecreational facility.
The site is located at 5748 Sapphire Drive. The site is zoned S-1/Residence-Low Density.
At the July 22, 2002, meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Department apprised the Board of a
compliance issue related to the conditional approval of Docket No. SU-13-00, the petition for a private recreational
facility at the Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit Subdivision. At that meeting the BZA directed the Department
to pursue the matter aggressively.
On July 22, 2002, the Department issued a letter directing Davis Homes to submit a Landscape Plan for
Department review no later than Friday, August 9, 2002. On Friday, August 2, 2002,Trent Sokol of Davis Homes
contacted the Department to make a case that the site was not subject to Section 26.4:Perimeter Buffering,because
the Section did not exist in July 2000. The Department informed Mr. Sokol that the regulations did,in fact, exist at
that time as Appendix A:Perimeter Buffering, and that they had been moved to Chapter 26 to more easily reference
them. Regardless, the Board's approval made the Landscape Plan approvable at the discretion of the Department,
not a specific Section of the Zoning Ordinance; and the Department had decided to apply the bufferyard standards
adopted by the Plan Commission and City Council as the appropriate measure. Mr. Sokol was also advised that
Davis Homes had the option of Appealing the Department determination to the Board if they did not wish to proceed
under Section 26.4. A letter was issued that afternoon, reiterating both the standard and the August 9`h deadline.
The telephone conversation on August 2, 2002, was the last and only contact that Davis Homes has had with the
Department on this matter.
Davis Homes did not submit a Landscape Plan by the August 9, 2002, deadline. On Monday, August 12,
2002,the Department turned the matter over to Code Enforcement and the Department of Law for further action.
Page 1
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26, 2002
Page 2 of 16
J. Public Hearing:
1-13j. Carmax Auto Superstores (V-54-02; V-55-02; V-56-02; V-57-02; V-58-02; V-59-02; V-60-02; V-61-
02; V-62-02; V-63-02; V-64-02;V-65-02;V-66-02)
Petitioner seeks approval of the following Developmental Standards Variances:
V-54-02§14.6:Landscaping Requirements 15' north and east bufferyards
V-55-02§25.7.01-2 8'traffic directional sign El
V-56-02§25.7.01-2 4-square-foot traffic directional sign El
V-57-02§25.7.01-2 8'traffic directional sign E2
V-58-02§25.7.01-2 4-square-foot traffic directional sign E2
V-59-02§25.7.02-8(b)(i) five(5)identification signs(A,B,B1, C,D)-5 0
V-60-02§25.7.02-8(b)(ii) three(3)id signs oriented east(B,C,D)- S-o
V-61-02§25.7.02-8(c) 193-square-foot wall identification sign A
V-62-02§25.7.02-8(c) 193-square-foot wall identification sign C
V-63-02§25.7.02-8(c) 78.33-square-foot ground identification sign B
V-64-02§25.7.02-8(c) 78.33-square-foot ground identification sign B1
V-65-02§25.7.02-8(d) 8' ground identification sign B
V-66-02§25.7.02-8(d) 12'31/4"ground identification sign B 1
The site is located on the northwest corner of East 96th Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned B-
3/Business.
These Items are also the subject of an ADLS petition (Docket No. 46-02 DP/ADLS) before the Plan
Commission. At the Tuesday, August 20, 2002, meeting, the Plan Commission approved the DP/ADLS with
Conditions unrelated to these variance requests.
During the past few months, the Department and the Plan Commission have worked with the petitioner to
revise the plans. The result has been a dramatic reduction in the scale of the Sign Plan that has rendered the
following DSV petitions moot:
V-55-02§25.7.01-2 8'traffic directional sign El
V-56-02§25.7.01-2 4-square-foot traffic directional sign El
V-57-02§25.7.01-2 8'traffic directional sign E2
V-58-02§25.7.01-2 4-square-foot traffic directional sign E2
V-61-02§25.7.02-8(c) 193-square-foot wall identification sign A
V-62-02§25.7.02-8(c) 193-square-foot wall identification sign C
V-63-02§25.7.02-8(c) 78.33-square-foot ground identification sign B
V-64-02§25.7.02-8(c) 78.33-square-foot ground identification sign B 1
V-65-02§25.7.02-8(d) 8'ground identification sign B
V 66-02§25.7.02-8(d) 12' 3''A"ground identification sign B 1
The Depaitment recommends that the Board ask the petitioner to withdraw the aforementioned petitions.
Therefore,the Department recommends favorable consideration of the three remaining Items (Docket Nos.
V-54-02; V-59-02; V-60-02).
G " Goc.4
.e2
Page 2
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
• Page 3 of 16
14j. Tabled indefinitely at request of petitioner.
Burton Accessory Building(V-92-02)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.1.1(B)(1): Maximum
Height in order to construct a 19' 10"accessory building.
The site is located at 3227 East 136th Street. The site is zoned R-1/Residence.
The petition was filed April 12, 2002. The Public Hearing for this Item was on the June 24, 2002, agenda,
but had to be tabled for the following reasons: The petitioner has not responded to the comments of the Technical
Advisory Committee made at the May 22, 2002,meeting(see Exhibit A). The petitioner has not filed Informational
Packets as required per Article IV, Section 8, of the Board's Rules. The petitioner has not paid the filing fee.
Finally,the petitioner has not provided Proof of Notice. These circumstances remain.
At the Monday, July 22, 2002, meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the petitioner appeared to request
that the BZA not dismiss the petition for lack of prosecution per Article VII, Section 5, of the Board's Rules as the
Department had recommended. The petitioner explained that he was working with the neighbors to resolve issues
related to Covenants & Restrictions in the area. The Department reversed the recommendation based on the
petitioner's explanation of the circumstances, and the Board granted the petitioner's request to Table the Item
indefinitely while he worked toward resolution. The petitioner was directed to contact the Department when he is
ready to proceed. As of this writing the petitioner has not contacted the Department indicating that he is prepared to
move forward,nor have the information and materials cited in the first paragraph of this report been received.
This Item remains Tabled.
Page 3
Depailment Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 4 of 16
Item 14j.
exhibit A
Technical Advisory Committee
May 22,2002
3227 East Smokey Row Road(DSV)
The petitioner seeks approval of a Development Standards Variance of Section 25.1.1(B)(1): Maximum Height in
order to construct a 19' 10"accessory building.
The site is located at 3227 East Smokey Row Road. The site is zoned R-1/Residence.
Filed by J. Scott Burton.
J. Scott Burton purchased the property and 100-year-old home two years ago. It has a carriage house/garage that is
used as an accessory building. The Burton have renovated the home. Now Mr. Burton wants to renovate the
carriage house/garage. It is not presently functional. It has old doors. He wants to replace a portion of the carriage
house, tear down the existing garage structure, and replace it with a new garage/accessory building. The height of
the garage exceeds the 18-foot limit. Mr.Burton intends to install a basketball hoop in the garage. The height of the
new construction will be 20 feet with a pitched roof.
Dick Hill has no issues. The property is east of Range Line. It has a white house. All development standard
variances must go through TAC,unless for a sign. The size of the new structure will be 30'X 40' garage.
Steve Cash,John South,and Gary Hoyt had no comments.
Scott Brewer inquired if any trees would be cut down. A large sycamore might have to be removed. Some existing
pine trees will be trimmed. Mr.Brewer invited the petitioner to call for advise from him is desired.
Jon Dobosiewicz needs a site plan. Laurence Lillig may have it. He requested more dimensioning on the plan to
show the relationship of the existing structures to the property lines. More detail is required. The petitioner might
wish to enlarge the survey and show the existing house. An aerial of the parcel is available on the County web site.
A right click on the mouse will measure distance. The Hamilton County web site is co.hamilton.in.us. At the
bottom of the page there is a GIS option. This will give highway counts on road traffic.
Page 4
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 5 of 16
S
15-16j. Carmel Science&Technology Park,Block 17,Lot 1-Old Meridian Medical(V-145-02; V-146-02)
Petitioner seeks renewal of Development Standards Variances of Sections 3.7: Vision Clearance on Corner
Lots and 25.7.02-11(e):Location to reduce the setback from right-of-way from ten feet to 0.93 feet on Old
Meridian Street and 8.28 feet on West Carmel Drive. The site is located on the southeast corner of West
Carmel Drive and Old Meridian Street. The site is zoned OM-O/Old Meridian-Office.
On August 28, 2000, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a two-year approval for a ground sign erected
without a Sign Permit on the south corner of West Carmel Drive and Old Meridian Street. The purpose of the time
limit was to allow for construction to occur or for plans to be developed for future construction at the intersection
(see Exhibit A). Plans have been developed, and the sign will most likely be affected by the construction of the
improvements(see Exhibit B). The sign will be entirely within the temporary right-of-way required for the project;
have a zero-foot setback from the chamfer right-of-way; and be less than one foot from the Old Meridian Street
right-of-way.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of these petitions with the following Conditions:
1. That the petitioner submit a written Commitment that, if directed by the City Engineer to remove
the sign prior to or during construction of the improvements, the relocation of the sign will be
accomplished at the petitioner's expense;and
2. That the sign will be relocated in full compliance with the Sign Ordinance.
Page 5
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 6 of 16 •
Items 15-16j.
exhibit A
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes
August 28,2000
24h-25h. Carmel Science&Technology Park,Block 17,Lot 1 (V-103-00;V-104-00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 3.7: Vision Clearance on Corner Lots and
25.7.02-11(e): Location to reduce the setback from right-of-way from ten feet to 0.93 feet on Old Meridian
Street and 8.28 feet on West Carmel Drive. The site is located on the southeast corner of West Carmel
Drive and Old Meridian Street. The site is zoned M-3/Manufacturing.
Filed by Paul G.Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Old Meridian Investments.
Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, and Mark Monroe of The Reis Law Firm appeared before the Board
representing the applicant. The center identification sign is located
The current right-of-way for Old Meridian Street is 50 feet from the centerline. The existing pavement includes a
through lane and a right-turn lane. The pavement is 27.66 feet from the closest point of the sign and substantial
right-of-way exists between the pavement and the sign.
The height of the sign is five feet, but because of the grade of the intersection, the vision perspective is
approximately four feet. The sign went through an extensive approval process and was in advance of the Old
Meridian Street Ordinance. The sign and fencing on the sign create a streetscape and also screen the parking area
between the building and the right-of-way.
Design of the sign: The aluminum, individual letters are back-lit;the "Old Meridian"portion of the sign is back-lit,
the"Professional Center"portion is not back-lit. There is landscaping around the sign at the base. According to Mr.
Reis, the sign does not interfere with motorist sight/vision. Except for the practical difficulties of dealing with how
the site has been developed with the Old Meridian Street future improvements and the streetscape provided,the sign
is in no way an adverse effect on the adjoining property owners or the area.
The petitioner is requesting approval of the sign at this time.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition;no one appeared.
Charles Weinkauf asked the petitioner to address whether or not the sign was established without a permit.
Mr. Reis responded that the sign was apparently established without a permit. Mr. Reis was asked to review the
signage for his client and determined that the signage required a variance.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Variance petitions were made for an existing sign established without a sign
permit. If a site plan review had been done in conjunction with an application for the sign permit,there would be no
need for the variances. The Department is recommending that the after-the-fact Variance petitions be given negative
consideration and that the sign be required to be re-located in accordance with the requirements of the Sign
Ordinance.
For further clarification, Laurence Lillig explained that every sign permit application is required to be accompanied
by a site plan that shows the distance of the sign from the right-of-way. The application is reviewed to determine
whether or not it complies with the Ordinance, and whether or not it is outside the "Vision Triangle." Since there
was no application for a sign permit,the review was never accomplished.
Mr. Weinkauf commented that he had visited the site and felt that this particular sign is aesthetically pleasing. In
this particular case, Mr. Weinkauf felt that the sign was extremely setback, complements the fencing, and was not a
problem with vision clearance.
Page 6
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26, 2002
• Page 7 of 16
According to the Department,the sign has been in existence for at least two months,perhaps more. With respect to
the right-of-way, there is currently a plan being considered for the entire corridor. Even though the streets, as
currently designed, may not have a vision problem, the streets as they are proposed to be re-designed will be four
lanes and at some points,a median, and the pavement widths will be extended out and may pose a vision obstacle at
that time.
Ms. Rice commented that the sign had been part of a package submission for the Plan Commission, and thought it
had been approved some time ago. Mr. Lillig responded that in a lot of instances, the petitioner believes that ADLS
approval is an approval for signage--it is not.
Mr.Molitor commented that the City's plans for roadway improvements do not contemplate additional right-of-way
acquisition. That may not be firm or definite, but additional right-of-way is not anticipated at this time. The Board
may wish to consider granting a variance for a period of three years; this would allow the City time to complete the
highway improvements--the issue could then be revisited.
Mr. Weinkauf commented that the utility box, a fire hydrant, and two telephone poles at this site cause more
obstruction to the line of sight than the sign does.
Mr.Molitor stated that if the City is fairly certain that the street improvements will not require the sign to be moved,
the Board could ask for a commitment from the petitioner that upon request from the City Engineer, if the City
Engineer deems the sign to be an osbtruction,the petitioner would return to the Board of Zoning Appeals for review
of the commitment and relocation of the sign.
Pat Rice said she could not imagine the City would require right-of-way that the sign would interfere with, since the
sidewalks are already in place.
Laurence Lillig reported that the property was platted last year as part of the project under the Old Thoroughfare
Plan. Many projects along Carmel Drive are currently being asked for an additional 10 feet of right-of-way. If it is
needed on this particular property, 10 feet additional will bring it right to the sign.
Mr. Reis volunteered that the applicant has already dedicated the additional 10 feet on Carmel Drive. It is believed
that the sidewalk is relatively close to the streetscape being proposed northward. The large utility box controls the
traffic signal and is under the Street Department maintenance/control. When this site was platted,there was a lot of
discussion between the developer and the Plan Commission. The signage went through the ADLS process and all of
the issues were reviewed and discussed;however,a permit was never issued for the sign.
If, at a future date, there is a need for additional right-of-way, the petitioner would have to relocate the sign and
come into compliance with the Ordinance. As it exists now,Mr. Weinkauf did not see a problem.
John Molitor recommended an additional commitment from the petitioner in the event the City would require
additional right-of-way;the City would not pay for re-location of sign and would be done at expense of owner, since
the sign was initially installed unlawfully.
There were additional questions regarding the placement of the sign and the location on the plan of the signage. The
location of the sign on the plan does not constitute an application for a sign permit at that location.
Leo Dierckman suggested granting a variance for a period of 2 years, thereby allowing an opportunity for future
roadway improvements. The petitioner can return to the Board.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V-103-00; and V-104-00,Carmel Science& Technology Park,Block 17,
Lot 1, for a period of two years with mandatory refiling at that time by the petitioner, seconded by Michael Mohr.
APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed.
Page 7
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26, 2002
Page 8 of 16 '
Items 15-16j.
exhibit B
Construction Plans
.-
,E. .°Om tin -_. 00mm Rom? ' '
;on str Limits - ,J! - - - •c""T"'
A k'' -1 %�
VP 0///\ i
l' --_2 -.2\;a1.9'.
O. 785m // c
h
i- t e
..t y
,,, i r * (
O.6m i
E ii
O //
ii
_ O. 85m °
1_ ± L1t
�� t 1 fr'S
1
T)---- • -------- • --e-r)------ wIl. A \ a.)
Grodn . f e /4 lk -'
App. Ex. R/W , 1 .
f 827
0. 1rn 18m I
a-m
., "" _ to . . R/W• I --
5. 778 `A Pp � �,
). DOD "' R-3" 20. m I k
Page 8
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 9 of 16
17j. Lakes at Hayden Run,Section 1,Block A(SU-147-02)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish a private recreational facility on 1.249±acres.
The site is located at 13175 Roma Bend. The site is zoned S-1/Residence-Estate.
On August 2, 2002, the petitioner submitted revised plans that address most of the Technical Advisory
Committee's concerns. The Department is still waiting for final letters of approval from several TAC members.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration with the following Conditions:
1. That the Secondary Plat for the Lakes at Hayden Run, Section One (Plan Commission Docket
No. 28-02 SP),be recorded and one mylar and three paper copies of the recorded plat returned to
the Department of Community Services prior to an Improvement Location Permit being issued for
this project;
2. That all outstanding Technical Advisory Committee issues be resolved prior to the issuance of an
Improvement Location Permit for this project; and
3. That Landscape Plan approval be delegated to the Urban Forester, and that such approval be
granted prior to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit for this project.
� '
„C,"1/4/4" "611° 4.) $11e: ley
Cia
e1/914;
o 6
1,, V
• 2.01:
},p2,1
Page 9
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 10 of 16
Item 17j.
exhibit A
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
July 17, 2000
Lakes at Hayden Run,Section 1,Block A(Special Use)
The petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to construct an amenity area on 1.249+.
The site is located northwest of the intersection of West 131st Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned
S1/Residence-Estate.
Filed by Thomas L.Kutz of Centex Homes.
Thomas Kutz for Centex Homes, requesting approval to construct the amenity area of Lakes of Hayden Run. This
basically sits in the middle of Section 1,which was approved a few months ago
Ron from CINergy would like to have a load sheet; can fax over a sheet as an example. Ron anticipated some of the
load and sat the transformer close and used larger wires. I also need a meter base location. We will have a pedestal
location.
Tom Kutz points out a baby pool pump and lighting requirements. Ron, you have made this similar to our Royal
Woods in Fishers. We will sit storage room here and meter setting in this location.
Ron needs meter base "close to source". We can run larger wire to get closer. We can't change transformer; you
will have to pay for transformer if it is completed this way. Because there is a lot of parking lot involved, we would
like for you to run conduit to pedestal.
Various comments: Tom, trench, sidewalk? Ron, fence to walk-need a little more than 10' Tom we now have 8',
put a conduit here? Ron will look at it further and get with Tom. Ron, I do not have jurisdiction over that. Tom,
easier to come in other side, already designed and state approved. Jon asks if they are looking to pull permit before
secondary plat approval? Tom says no.
Steve did you receive my letter? Nothing to add unless you have questions about my letter.
Tom would like to maintain curb cut.
Jon did you show depressed curb and ADA for sidewalks, right of way? Where is the jogging trail? I'm talking
about entrance to pool and sidewalk. Is this a roll curb or built on (not curb on top of curb)? Make sure it is
designed right LEAVE ROLL CURB IN PLACE.
Ed Fleming says we are showing as a handicap now.
Tom,we will note on site plan as handicapped.
Steve Cash notes parking lot is over storm sewers. Let's check plans for landscaping. No conflicts with the storm
sewers.
Tom,did we do that in plan one? note storm sewer 207. In phase one,we have it on sheet four.
Steve, some trees are planted over drip line. Trees must be extended out over pipe.
Tom,regarding drip line in the right of way,is it okay to hang over the drip line?
Steve, "yes it is okay".
Laurence,is this a swale coming across the north? Do you plan to make a path?
Page 10
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 11 of 16
Tom and Ed, "yes".
Gary Hoyt has not sent comment letter yet but will. Requests Knox box for access. Will provide petitioner with an
application;just contact office.
Tom, can you send specification sheet for residential? Who is supplier?
Gary,the supplier is out of CA and they will mail it to you.
John South,requests erosion control on the plan.
Jon asks what is size of pool? Tom responds it is 1,999SF. Jon notes it needs to be 2,000SF. Jon will provide a
letter.
Laurence says landscaping will need to be approved by Scott Brewer. It needs to meet requirements in SEC 26.4,
buffer and residential uses. Laurence would like to know if they did a fence detail,and an elevation of site. Is there
signage for pool?
Tom may place a small"POOL THIS WAY"sign but it will not be a permanent sign.
Laurence notes petitioner actually filed a secondary plat application; special use application is needed. As Jon
mentioned regarding sidewalks,and general layout,paths internal to the site need to be in place.
Jon suggests you modify the designs of common areas, easement to pathway,pedestrian access easement and trails.
It might be simpler to modify language of common areas. Is there a 10'path?
Tom we will plat as common areas.
Laurence says secondary plat has been filed but needs to be recorded. Laurence would like to know if there is
exterior lighting,identical to Haverstick Pool. Laurence will get revised application on file and will get address.
Tom notes there will be coach lights on columns and lights for pool at nighttime.
Page 11
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002 0
Page 12 of 16 '
\ _
/ Y
18-19j. Henderson/Laurelwood Accessory Building(V 012;V 0 12)
Petitioner seeks Development Standards Varian ' Sections 5.1.1(A)(2)and 25.9: Drainage in order to
establish an accessory building on a parcel without a principal building and to fill within the floodplain of
Spring Mill Run creek.
The site is located at 10211 Ditch Road. The site is zoned S-1/Residence-Very Low Density.
The petitioner is requesting approval to establish an accessory building on a parcel without a principal
building. The accessory building will be located on fill within the Spring Mill Run creek floodway.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the request to locate the accessory building on
the parcel(Docket No.V-148-02)due to the size of the parcel(approximately 9.6 acres)and the area available to set
the structure back from the right-of-way.
The Department is recommending negative consideration of the request to place the structure within the
floodway of Spring Mill Run (Docket No. V-149-02). The petitioner's rationale for placing the structure is to
obscure the view from the residence of a lift station also located on the subjectproperty. However,by moving the
structure northwest along the same sight line, the same effect can be achieved. Furthermore, if for some reason the
petitioner does not believe that farther northwest along the sight line outside the floodway is the most appropriate
location for the structure,visual screening of the lift station can be accomplished using landscape materials.
At the Wednesday, August 20, 2002, TAC meeting, the Urban Forester, the Department of Community
Services,the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office,and the Hamilton County Soil&Water Conservation District all
recommended against locating the structure within the floodway.
The Department recommends favorable consideration of Docket No. V-148-02, with the Conditions that
the accessory building be located outside the floodwav of Spring Mill Run and that a revised site plan be submitted.
The Department recommends negative consideration of Docket No.V-149-02.
Page 12
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26, 2002
Page 13 of 16
20j. Tabled indefinitely at request of petitioner.
Evangelical Baptist Mission(UV-150-02)
Petitioner seeks a Use Variance of Section 7.1: Permitted Uses in order to establish a missionary training
facility and offices on 3.6±acres.
The site is located northeast of the intersection of West 96th Street and Shelbome Road. The site is zoned
R-1/Residence.
The petitioner's representative has requested that this Item be Tabled indefinitely to allow the site plan to
be revised.
Page 13
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26, 2002
Page 14 of 16 D
21j. Hazel Dell Christian Church(SUA-151-02) �'
Petitioner seeks to amend the Special Use granted under Docket No.SU-20-99 in order to establish several
modular classrooms.
The site is located at 14501 Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-1/Residence-Low Density.
The petitioner is requesting_approval to establish four modular classrooms on site. The petitioner had not
distributed plans to the Technical Advisory Committee in advance of the July 17, 2002, meeting. Petitioner was
instructed to do so afterward. The Department has not received additional comment or inquiry from the member of
TAC since July 17`h
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition with the Condition that any TAC
concerns that may be raised during the period during which these modular classrooms are being utilized be resolved
in a timely fashion.
Page 14
Department Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 15 of 16
Item 21j.
exhibit A
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
July 17, 2000
Hazel Dell Christian Church Modular Classrooms(Special Use Amendment)
The petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to locate four(4) modular classrooms on site. The
site is located at 14501 Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-1/Residence-Low Density.
Filed by Alan K.Peterson for Hazel Dell Christian Church.
Present for petitioner: Alan Peterson,property chairman for Hazel Dell Christian Church, requesting a Special Use
Variance in order to place four modular classrooms on the south side of the building, a temporary use, while we go
through our two million dollar expansion to the building. We will be able to use these for up to two years until the
building is constructed will provide Laurence with photos of buildings. Hazel Dell Christian Church is located on
Hazel Dell Parkway just south of 146th Street. Would like to place the four classrooms on the south side of the
building with a 20' easement to the existing building. This is a 33,000 SF facility and we are looking at a 16,000 SF
building next to it. We hope to locate the classrooms, which are 24 x 48 on this ground. Electric access is on this
side of the building. Storms McMullen & Company will trench power and have already brought power into the
entire facility.
CINergy requests information about electrical access.
Steve Cash points out dotted line on drawing. Did original subdivision show this 3 years ago? The Master Plan is
to have full electrical access.
Alan notes that the Dodd Farm was in the original area. The two million dollar project was to perhaps finish out this
road. This can be extended. -will decide later.
Gary Hoyt asks for access back to trailers to get to the building. These are standard modular trailers for education,
the "New Castle"modular. Do these typically have fire alarm systems wired into them? Gary will get a letter out
to you.
Alan will set two modules immediately and two more in a year or so. Our plans are to start no later than the spring
of 2004.
Steve has no problem with the detention area,it is satisfactory. No further comments.
Dick Hill would like to receive a copy of the information;Alan may have misunderstood the process. Plans should
be forwarded to the engineer. Dick recalls that originally we exempted part of the church from water fees based on
size of church-we need to go back and reexamine this.
Alan notes no sewer or water for these classrooms.
Jon questions will church come back to set fees and budget for fees in expansion? We will be looking for additional
right of way dedication.This exact plan is what BZA referred to originally. You will need to meet with engineering
to see when this is implemented. My advice is that they budget for improvements and dedication. We do not want
it to come to them as a surprise.
John South,no comment.
Laurence will get a TAC list to Alan before he leaves so he can get the plans out to them.
Page 15
Department Report •
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2002
Page 16 of 16
K. Old Business.
lk. East 96th Street Office Campus(UV-176-00).
Petitioner seeks approval of revised Center Identification and Address signage, as well as approval of
Tenant signage.
The site is located at 2900,2910,2920&2930 East 96`h Street. The site is zoned S-2/Residence.
At the August 8, 2002, Special Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board requested that the
petitioner present materials samples for review at the August 26,2002,meeting.
The Department recommends favorable consideration of this petition conditioned upon satisfactory
resolution of any Board concerns.
L. New Business.
There is no New Business on the August 26, 2002, agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Page 16