HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 04-24-00 ie5
le)
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �`(',�P4
CITY OF CARMEL, CLAY TOWNSHIP �F
APRIL 24, 2000 l��
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM on
April 24, 2000 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak; Pat Rice; and
Charles Weinkauf.
Director Steve Engelking; Terry Jones; and Laurence Lillig were present representing the
Department of Community Services.
The minutes of the March 27, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted.
G. Reports, Announcements and Staff Concerns:
Laurence Lillig reported that counsel for Docket UV-2-00, Rod Busters, Inc., has
requested this item be TABLED.
Todd Ruetz, attorney with Campbell, Kyle & Proffitt, 650 East Cannel Drive,
appeared before the Board as counsel for applicants Ron and Marsha Estes. The initial
hearing was scheduled for February and was tabled due to an error in the notices sent to
adjoining homeowners regarding the legal description. Prior to the March meeting, it
became known that many of the nearby homeowners were concerned with the proposed
use variance and were requesting additional information. The petitioner then asked for a
Tabling to allow an opportunity for the petitioner to meet with the homeowners and
provide them with information. Since that time, Mr. Estes has decided to make some
improvements to the property to enhance the residential character of the proposed use.
Additional time is requested to allow preparation of site plans reflecting the proposed
improvements. The petitioner is now requesting a TABLING to the June 26th meeting
and will re-notice for the June meeting.
By unanimous consent,the Board TABLED Docket No. UV-2-00, Rod Busters, Inc., to
the June meeting.
H. Public Hearing:02h. Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit Amenity Area(SU-13-00)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval per Section 5.2: Permitted Special Uses in
order to establish a private recreational facility. The site is located northwest of
East 131st Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S-1/Residence.
Filed by Li-Ching Wu of Davis Homes.
s:\BoardofLoningAppeals\bza2000apr 1
Stu Huckelberry of Davis Homes appeared before the Board representing the applicant.
Davis Homes is requesting approval to construct a recreational facility to include a pool
and bathhouse/clubhouse within the Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit Subdivision.
Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell consists of 113 lots. The recreational facility would be
constructed on an area combined of two, adjacent common areas that currently exist in
the plat for Sections I and II. The area comprises 3/4 of an acre and includes the parking
lot. Landscaping and mounding will be utilized to visually screen the facility from the
adjacent homes on either side.
Mr. Huckelberry displayed the site on the overhead. Emerald Crest abuts but does not
encompass the Michner Ditch. Emerald Crest is bounded by 131st to the south, and
Cherry Tree Road to the northwest. There will be a single entrance to the recreational
area located opposite the main boulevard entry to the subdivision. The pool will measure
30 X 54, 1620 square feet, with concrete decking.
The bathhouse will be constructed of brick and/or stone, and vinyl sided with a shake
roof. The facility will be exactly the same as constructed at the Trails at Avian Glen, and
very similar to the one constructed at Shelborne Green off 96th Street. In terms of size
and arrangement/layout, it is exactly the same.
Charles Weinkauf commented that within the City limits of Carmel and within Clay
Township, there has been no body that has taken the initiative to set certain size
restrictions or other types of restrictions or limitations, rules and regulations regarding
pools of this type in developments. The Board has taken some fairly strong stands as far
as sizes of pools, and how they are proposed to be operated. There is concern about
safety of unguarded pools, and pools that are built strictly for cosmetic purposes and not
really functional once they are in place. This is considered to be just "window dressing."
Mr. Weinkauf asked if there were any way the pool could be made larger to
accommodate possible swim teams for neighborhood use.
Mr. Huckelberry stated that the pool will be eight feet deep, tapering down to three or
four feet. As currently proposed, the pool is gated, fenced, and the residents will have
either keys or key cards. If the pool were increased to a length of 75 feet,the State Board
of Health requires anything over 2,000 square feet to be guarded and this part of the
proposal would be changed.
Mr. Weinkauf stated major concerns with the health, safety, and welfare of the people in
the area. Merely fencing a pool does not solve the problem of having an unguarded pool,
8 feet deep.
In response to questions from Leo Dierkman, Mr. Huckelberry stated that there are 12
parking spaces and the landscape design must be subject to Board of Zoning Appeals
approval. As has been done in other pools, the day-to-day operation of the pools is
generally under the control of the Home Owners Association, typically this has been
contracted out. If Davis Homes is responsible for the operation, it is contracted out.
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 2
Mr. Huckelberry asked for the opportunity to meet with the Department and return to the
Board with a workable proposal.
Docket SU-13-00, Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit Amenity Area, was
TABLED to the May meeting.
3h. Briar Creek, Section 2, Lot 148 (V-16-00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
6.4.3: Minimum Side Yards to reduce the setback from 10 feet to 1.5 feet in order
to construct an attached garage on an existing residential structure on 0.910 acre.
The site is located at 10284 Lakeshore Drive East. The site is zoned S-
2/Residence.
Filed by Kenneth A. & Dinah L. Merritt.
Ken Merritt, owner of the property at 10284 Lakeshore Drive East, appeared before the
Board requesting approval to construct a garage that will accommodate their vehicles.
The existing garage would be converted to a study/playroom;the proposed garage will be
attached to the home.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to this petition; no
one appeared.
Mr. Merritt stated that the neighbors had been notified of the petition; the persons directly
south will no longer look into the current garage, (full of toys) and they are pleased with
the proposal. The opposite side of the home is unbuildable because of the flood plane.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department recommends favorable consideration of this
petition, although there is concern about the potential difficulty of maintaining the corner
of the garage, should any disagreement ever arise between the neighbors; 18 inches may
not be wide enough for future maintenance in that area. There are no Subdivision
restrictions against this type of variance.
The public hearing was then closed.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V-16-00,Briar Creek, Section 2, Lot 148.
APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
4h. Parkwood Crossing, Building 5 (RealMed) (V-18-00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
25.7.02-10(b) in order to establish a second tenant identification sign on the north
facade. The site is located at 501 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B-6/Business.
Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney &Evans for Duke-Weeks Realty,
LP.
John Smeltzer, attorney, Bose McKinney&Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing,
Indianapolis, appeared before the Board representing Duke-Weeks Realty as developers
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 3
of a development known as Parkwood Crossing, located south of 1465, north of 96th
Street, west of College and east of Pennsylvania Street.
The petitioner is requesting approval of signage for an additional tenant to be located in
Parkwood 5. The request is for Developmental Standards Variance of the Sign
Ordinance, specifically the number and type, to allow for the proposed "RealMed" sign to
be the second wall identification sign on the north façade of Building 5 facing I465.
Steve Granner, planner with Bose McKinney & Evans, was also in attendance.
Mr. Smeltzer commented that market forces dictate that sign identification for major
tenants must be provided on multi-story buildings if those buildings expect to be
competitive in the metropolitan market place. The existing tenant is Merrill Lynch, and
they are leasing one floor of the building comprising 27,500 square feet.
RealMed is leasing an entire floor and in addition, a portion of the first floor comprising
31,500 square feet. RealMed is a Carmel based company and desire corporate identity on
the building due to its prime location along I465. Location and size of the proposed
Real-Med sign would be complementary and compatible with the existing Merrill Lynch
sign. The sign for RealMed is block letters, RealMed 3X6, 17 feet in length, 59.5 square
feet in total. Mr. Smeltzer displayed a sample of the actual sign; it will be back-lit with a
halo effect, and similar to other signs in the vicinity and along the I465 corridor. The
petitioner is also scheduled to appear before the Special Study Committee of the Plan
Commission for ADLS approval on May 9, 2000.
It is the petitioner's belief that approval of the sign will not be injurious to the public
health, and general welfare of the community, in that the sign will be constructed and
installed by professionals using standard engineering plans and practices. The use and
value of the adjacent properties will not be adversely affected in that they are zoned B-6,
there are similar office type buildings in the area, and they have buildings with major
signage visible on those particular buildings. The proposed sign is typical of those in the
area.
The strict application of the ordinance results in practical difficulties, in that RealMed
would be a second major tenant in this building and they require this type of signage and
identification on the exterior walls of this particular building indicating their corporate
headquarters in Carmel. The petitioner is requesting approval at this time.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; the following
appeared:
Janet Cox, 9540 No. Broadway, stated that at the present time, there is only one sign
allowed on the building. Ms. Cox was concerned about notification to the adjacent
residents--there are two other buildings under construction, and if more than one sign is
to be requested, the adjacent neighbors should be notified.
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 4
Charles Weinkauf explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals is not a precedent-setting
Board. What might be approved in one particular instance might not be approved in
another instance--precedence does not prevail.
Mr. Smeltzer stated that the adjacent neighbors will certainly be notified in the event
there are additional signs requested.
Steve Granner, planner with Bose McKinney &Evans, stated that an agreement was
made with Nora Community Council that notices would be sent to them as well as
adjacent property owners in Marion County, so that there would be no confusion. The
building under construction is Building No. 6, closest to College, and CSO Architects
Building is in the northwest corner, Building 7. One sign has already been approved for
Building 7. Building 6 will be completed this summer and there has been no submittal
for signage on that building as yet. The first sign on the north facade would not require a
variance, a second sign would require a variance as well as notice.
Laurence Lillig reported that this petition also requires an ADLS amendment approval
from the Plan Commission and is scheduled for the May 9, 2000 Committee meeting.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration at this time.
Charles Weinkauf asked if the RealMed Sign were compatible in size and relative design
with the Merrill Lynch sign; the petitioner's response was in the affirmative.
The motion was then made for the approval of Docket No. V-18-00, RealMed.
APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
I. Old Business:
Robinson Barber Shop (UV-61-99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Use Variance of Section 16.1: Permitted Uses (B-
5/Business district) in order to establish a barber shop in an existing residential
structure. The site is located at 751 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-
5/Business.
Filed by Pat Robinson of PAR Enterprises.
Todd Reutz of Campbell Kyle & Proffitt, 650 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the
Board representing the applicant. Mr. Reutz requested that this Docket be TABLED to
allow a Developmental Standards variance to be heard in conjunction with the Use
Variance for the Barber Shop.
Mr. Reutz stated that John Molitor, counsel, has indicated that there are some on-going
settlement negotiations in regard to the pending law suit. It is believed that it might be in
the best interests of all parties if this Docket were tabled at this time to allow an
opportunity for settlement.
Docket No. UV-61-99,Robinson Barber Shop, was TABLED to a time uncertain.
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 5
NOTE: Items 2i. and 3i. were heard together.
Pat Rice stated that she had not had an opportunity to review material that was submitted
as recently as one hour prior to the meeting.
Pat Rice moved to Continue or Table Docket Nos. SU-8-00 and V-12-00 until the May
meeting to allow the Board time to review the materials, seconded by Earlene Plavchak..
Dave Coots, attorney with Coots, Henke and Wheeler, appeared before the Board
representing the University High School of Indiana. Mr. Coots stated that a meeting was
held last Monday with adjacent neighbors and landowners. Following that meeting, the
commitments were revised and materials were submitted on Wednesday to the
Department of Community Services.
As indicated to the Board in March, the petitioner has been working to get matters under
way so that the portion of the school to be constructed and open for school in the fall can
commence. The petitioner is hopeful that the changes in the commitments can be worked
through without incurring another 30-day delay.
Charles Weinkauf suggested a 15 minutes recess to allow the Board time to individually
review the information at hand.
Pat Rice referred to the previous meeting and the formal request for a site design and
overall plan for the property. There has not been time to review any materials, and the
site design is one of the important documents.
Michael Mohr stated that he would prefer to proceed with the Docket and make a
determination after hearing the presentation and explanation of information available at
this time.
Re-opening the public hearing was discussed--this would necessitate a formal motion.
In view of the motion to Table already on the floor, Earlene Plavchak withdrew her
second, Pat Rice withdrew her original motion to Table.
Leo Dierckman then moved to re-open the public hearing at this time and allow public
input under the Board's Rules of Procedure. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
The public hearing was officially re-opened.
After a short recess, the Board proceeded to hear the following items:
2i. University High School of Indiana (SU-8-00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use under Section 5.2: Permitted Special
Uses in order to establish a School of General Secondary Education on 86.75
acres. The site is located southwest of the intersection of West 116t Street and
Towne Road. The site is zoned S-1/Residence.
Filed by Chuck Webster of University High School of Indiana.
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 6
3i. University High School of Indiana(V-12-00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 5.4.1
in order to construct a 45 foot tall classroom/gymnasium building. The site is
located southwest of the intersection of West 116th Street and Towne Road. The
site is zoned S-1/Residence.
Filed by Chuck Webster of University High School of Indiana.
Dave Coots, attorney with Cooks, Henke& Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel,
appeared before the Board representing the applicant.
Charles Weinkauf asked that Dave Coots address some of the concerns and questions
raised by the remonstrators at the March meeting and advise what type of resolution the
petitioner is willing to make. In general, Mr. Weinkauf asked Mr. Coots to make a
presentation on where things stand since the last Board meeting in March.
Dave Coots introduced Ben Rawlins of Oldham, McGuire Shook, architect on this
particular project.
The landscape plan for the site was displayed on the overhead projector. At the previous
Board meeting, there was a concern expressed about the overall master plan and how
definitive the master plan can be at this point. The school buildings (aside from the
northwest portion) are to be built as soon as approvals are obtained from the City. Most
comments are addressed to the area south of the pipeline that bisects the property from
northeast to southwest.
Due to the spring break school schedule, a meeting was not scheduled until April 13th
with the property owners. At the request of Mr. Gartenhaus who was out of town on
business, the meeting was moved back to Monday, April 17th. There were 5 or 6
adjoining property owners in attendance at that meeting, including Mr. Gartenhaus. The
focus of that meeting was what is planned for the southern portion of the property. The
first issue was that there were gaps along the south property boundary in the landscape
plan that was presented. The issue had been raised of the 25 foot buffer requirement
between a special use for school use and adjacent residential property--the question was
asked if the petitioner were willing to increase the buffer; at that time, the petitioner was
unwilling to do more than was actually required by the Ordinance.
Subsequently, Chuck Webster, on behalf of the school, agreed to commit to an additional
25 foot buffer, thereby doubling the buffer yard requirement. In the revised
commitments, the petitioner agreed to install and maintain buffer yard design along the
east, south, and west borders, according to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Buffer
Yard Design Standards in effect where institutional uses abut single family real estate.
The width of the buffer yard shall be a minimum of 50 feet; the landscaping along the
south shall be enhanced by applicant; planting in the calendar year 2000 will total 100
pine, fir, or spruce evergreen trees along the southern boundary to provide a visual buffer
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\b7a7000apr 7
and lower level screen. Landscaping along the east boundary will include 50 pine, fir,
and spruce evergreens, (abutting Mr. Donaldson's property) interspersed with mounding
to provide a visual buffer and lower level screen, planted 15 feet apart in two rows. This
landscaping shall occur at the time the development of the main school campus south of
the pipeline easement is begun.
Along the entire southern boundary that abuts the lots of Kingsmill Subdivision, the
buffer has been increased to 50 feet, and plantings have been provided for in this calendar
year. The existing fence row also creates a landscape buffer. Therefore, the concern
regarding the visual buffer/landscape screen is now addressed.
It is anticipated that the northwest portion of the school will begin construction in May,
2002, and would be occupied in the 2003 school year. The building would be a 5 to 7
million dollar structure, compared with the 6 million dollars required for the purchase of
the property and to build the first building in the northwest portion of the property.
The second building would be built thereafter, and the third building to be constructed
would be the athletic facility within 7 to 10 years. It is anticipated that the athletic fields
would be constructed as a part of the landscape plan during the construction of the main
campus building. When the main campus is developed, the adjacent property owners will
have an opportunity for input.
Positioning was discussed for the track and field in terms of functionality; it was
determined that the field is best angled as is for an east/west field and the upper right was
moved closer to the southern boundary. The tennis courts in the lower right portion of
the site were basically approved without objection by the adjacent property owners, and
there have been no changes made to this portion of the development.
There was a question from the adjacent property owners as far as knowing when
construction is to commence and at what point they will be permitted to participate in the
planning and appearance of the buildings. The petitioner has agreed to come before the
Plan Commission for Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage (ADLS)
approval at every stage of construction. The petitioner has also agreed to notice
adjoining property owners, as if it were a public hearing, when an application is filed
with the Department of Community Services for ADLS review by the Plan Commission.
The report from Laurence Lillig dated April 18 summarizing the meeting between the
petitioner and adjoining property owners specifies topics of discussion as lighting, access,
drainage, location of spectator sports facilities, composition of the buffer yards, and the
ability of the neighbors to continue to voice concern as the project develops. The
petitioner agreed to revisions to the site plan that would move certain facilities farther
from the property lines which led to the 50 foot commitment, and a commitment to the
public hearing process for the ADLS petitions.
On behalf of Mr. Fisher, Mr. Smeltzer faxed to Mr. Coots a list of commitments and
conditions as follows:
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 8
Item#1 states that initial construction of any school constructed upon the real estate shall
be located in substantial conformity to the conceptual master plan.
Mr. Coots responded that the school didn't just dream this up, put it on paper and stick it
on the wall and expect to come into the Board three years from now with a totally
different concept. This is the mast plan that the school is working with. For the
petitioner to commit today that these are the buildings and this is where they will be built-
-this will change because of find raising, how fast the school grows, etc. The petitioner
is willing to commit to the Board that this is the master plan the petitioner will seek to
implement over the next 10 year period of time. The number of parking spaces,
landscaping, the parking lots, etc. will have to be the subject of ADLS petitions before
Plan Commission. However,the petitioner is willing to commit to substantially conform
to this conceptual master plan.
Item#2 states that no building or structure nor any addition to any existing building or
structure of any kind shall be built within 400 feet of the south boundary of the real
estate.
Mr. Coots stated that 400 feet takes the line almost to the south boundary of the southern
most building seen on the plan now. It consumes slightly more than 16 acres if the
petitioner were to make that commitment. That is 20% of the property that is owned. As
you know, the pipeline bisecting this tract takes a considerable piece out of the property
already that cannot be built on. Therefore,the petitioner is NOT able to commit to a 400
foot setback or buffer when faced with an ordinance that contemplates this type of use
adjacent to single family residential that specifies 25 feet. As indicated earlier, the
petitioner is willing to increase the buffer to 50 feet.
Item#3 states that no outside speakers or other outdoor amplification equipment of any
kind shall be used upon the real estate to amplify sound at any time on the south 400 feet
of the south boundary of the real estate.
Mr. Coots stated that the petitioner feels this is a consideration that would have to
accompany architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and signage application. It is not
something that the petitioner is able to say today that under no circumstances will there
be an athletic field or a "something" in the 400 feet that would have an amplification or a
loud speaker.
Item#4 states that no tents or other similar temporary structure shall be permitted to be
erected, placed, or permitted to remain at any time upon the south 400 feet.
Mr. Coots responded that this is regulated by Ordinance and for the petitioner to do
anything like that, he would have to come before the Board for a Variance and/or a
permit.
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 9
Item#5 States that Offstreet Parking shall not be permitted within 150 feet of the south
boundary of the real estate.
Mr. Coots stated that he was opposed to making a commitment today without having the
ultimate design locked in. The petitioner is aware of that and knows that if he returns
with an ADLS three years from now that has parking 50 feet from the south property
boundary, there will be a remonstrance. Mr. Coots did not think there was a problem
with this, but the petitioner is not in a position to commit to the Board that they are
agreeable to eliminate parking within 150 feet of the south boundary.
Item#6 refers to a minimum of 50 feet in a landscape buffer on the south property line.
Dave Coots responded that the petitioner is agreeable and has committed to the 50 foot
landscape buffer on the south side.
Item#7 Upon development or any other use for recreational purposes of any part of the
south 400 feet, all landscaping required in item#6 shall be installed.
Mr. Coots responded that aside from the 400 foot restriction, the landscaping will be
installed as a part of the ADLS at any time there is to be an improvement in the area of
the main campus.
Item#8 States that no portion of the south 400 feet shall be lighted for use or otherwise
used for outdoor recreational purposes after 10:00 PM
Mr. Coots responded that Carmel already has a lighting and noise restriction ordinance.
It is something that is unknown, and having received this Friday, Mr. Coots was unsure
that the Board has even had a chance to review. As was told to the Board at the last
meeting, it is the petitioner's intent to be good neighbors in this area and not
confrontational. It is not the intent to light up the neighborhood for all hours of the day
and night. To say, however, that if, in the future, there was an activity that was lighted, it
would shut off at 10:00 PM because it is 10:00 PM and not because the game was over; it
is unsure that this type of commitment can be made. Perhaps Mr. Webster can address
this further.
Item#9 States that any exterior lighting upon the real estate shall not cause illumination
beyond the property line in excess of one tenth of a foot candle at the boundary.
Mr. Coots responded that this is stated in the Ordinance, and the petitioner would comply
unless the Board granted a variance and that is not the petitioner's intent.
Mr. Coots stated that the lighting standards for the parking area within the 400 foot line
cannot be committed to at this time. Knowing what is known about the design of the
parking lot and/or baseball facility, etc. that could be built within the 400 feet, 20 feet
would be high enough to accomplish this, but not high enough to light a baseball park.
s:\BoardofLoningAppeals\bza2000apr 10
Item#10 also states that no permanent or temporary spectator bleacher, seating area,
concession facilities or restroom facilities shall be located within the 400 feet.
Mr. Coots stated that the petitioner is willing to include the construction of permanent
facilities: Concession because it has a roof; restrooms because they would have a roof
and would require ADLS approval. The petitioner would also be willing to commit that
they would not be constructed without Plan Commission approval on any part of the
property. But,to exclude them automatically from 400 feet south does take away a lot of
the availability of use for the property that exceeds the requirements that a Special Use
seeks to have the petitioner comply.
Finally, there were some requests from the Department that the Docket numbers be
corrected to read SU 8-00 and V-12-00;this will be done. Paragraph B has been
corrected to reflect ...."according to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission's buffer yard
guidelines ...." and further, that such buffer yard shall meet the guideline designs as
opposed to standards. Subparagraph C states that the petitioner will come before the Plan
Commission for any ADLS approval and that notice will be given as required by public
hearing as opposed to first class mail notice.
There are still some areas that the petitioner and the adjacent property owners have not
met in terms of the 400 feet, but the petitioner is requesting a vote for approval this
evening.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following
appeared:
Greg Ossip, 12411 Hoover Road, Cannel appeared before the Board and reported that
from the master plan, it looks like the petitioner is being cooperative--it will be a nice
facility and Mr. Ossip was hopeful that the Board would approve the School.
Diana Lind, 107598 Kings Mill Drive, Carmel appeared before the Board and reported
that she has a daughter who intends to attend the University High School commencing
next year. Ms. Lind stated that her property abuts an elementary school. Ms. Lind is
understanding of the concerns of the adjacent property owners. The requirement of the
setback of 50 feet with screening is something she would like to have on her property--it
would be a great benefit. The University School will be a great asset to the community of
Kings Mill and Ms. Lind would like to see more blending between the Kings Mill
community and the School in the future. Ms. Lind was hopeful that the issues could be
resolved and that the school could commence construction as soon as possible.
David Farrihan, 9753 Summer Lakes, Carmel appeared before the Board and stated that
he intended to enroll a daughter in the University School as soon as they are accepting
enrollment. Mr. Farrihan stated that if another neighborhood were to occupy the site, it
would be a lot more crowded, it would be more noisy, there would be more streets, more
cars, and a lot less than the neighborhood would desire. The proposed school offers the
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bn'000apr 11
neighborhood much better than expected otherwise, and Mr. Farrihan urged the Board to
vote in favor of the School.
Brad Donaldson, 11500 Towne Road, Carmel, spoke in favor of the proposed school,
assuming that all the commitments specified are met by the petitioner. Mr. Donaldson
sated that he was a little confused by the drawings, and asked that the petitioner be more
specific regarding the density of the berms along the southern and eastern boundaries.
The drawings show trees touching trees--a total sight blockage--but it seems as though 50
pine trees, one-half the density on a linear span as opposed to the 100 pine trees along the
southern boundary, will not get the job done as far as sight blockage. Mr. Donaldson
stated that he is in favor of the school, but requested clarification and more specificity on
the trees.
Victoria Farrihan, 9753 Summer Lakes, Carmel stated that there are a number of private
schools that have not detracted from adjoining neighborhoods and have even elevated the
value of the neighborhoods in close proximity and have attracted residents. Ms. Farrihan
was of the opinion that the proposed school would be an asset to the neighborhood and
would attract new residents to the area. Ms. Farrihan was very much in favor of the
school.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition;the following
appeared:
Kevin Gartenhaus, 3350 Shore Drive, Greenwood, owner of lot 97 in Kingsmill, adjacent
the southwestern corner of the field, appeared before the Board. At the last meeting, Mr.
Gartenhaus spoke of concerns regarding noise, lights, security, traffic, safety, impact on
property values, and impact on property use. Mr. Gartenhaus referred to the Vision 20/20
Plan for the City of Carmel, Chapter 5, page 4, section 1.3.1. Mr. Gartenhaus' contention
was that the way the field is situated, it is adverse to the character of the area. In
addition, Mr. Gartenhaus was of the opinion that the use would be injurious and
adversely affect the adjacent land and/or property values. As one of the persons adjacent
to the proposed school, Mr. Gartenhaus believed that it would adversely affect his
property value. Mr. Gartenhaus felt that one the use is approved for the school, there is
no further incentive for the school to negotiate in a serious way with adjacent property
owners. The school could also put up a football field where it stands right now, and most
likely, it would be difficult to overturn it once the Special Use application is approved--
the school has not agreed to any restrictions on that area. The track and field could easily
turn into a football field with stands, lights, concessions, etc. In addition, if the athletic
facility is approved for a 45 foot height in the northwest section, Mr. Gartenhaus was
concerned that the athletic facility in the southern part of the property would be granted a
45 foot height. From lot 97, it would be an eyesore and Mr. Gartenhaus requested that
the petitioner commit to a 40 foot height restriction. In Mr. Gartenhaus' opinion, the
changes are cosmetic only and do not significantly alter what was originally proposed
because the field has not changed from where it was. Mr. Gartenhaus commented that a
delay in approval was warranted because there needed to be specific restrictions agreed to
prior to the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 12
Mr. Gartenhaus believed that the School's plan would clearly, negatively affect his
property(lot 97.) The developer of Kingsmill, Carriger-Wilson, has never once stated
that the school was going in, although they do clearly highlight the fact that the
elementary school is in existence.
Mr. Gartenhaus asked for consideration of the following questions before a vote this
evening. Can the school build the field 50 feet from lot 97 and put up stands if the
Special Use application as it currently stands is approved? Mr. Gartenhaus thought
"yes." Will there be any real chance that a 45 foot gymnasium in the middle of the
property would not be approved later, since they already have a 45 foot approval on the
northern portion of the site? Mr. Gartenhaus thought "no." What are the odds that lights
and standards and electronics won't be approved after this? Mr. Gartenhaus thought the
odds are very likely that they would. Even though the school has agreed to notify the
neighbors if they proposed those changes, Mr. Gartenhaus did not want to spend the next
10 years of his life at Plan Commission meetings every time one of the issues comes up.
Mr. Gartenhaus was in favor of making the commitments in advance that both parties can
live with, then neither party has to worry about going before the other again.
Mr. Gartenhaus had some final, personal questions. If you were the people that lived in
lot 97 or 96, and that was staring you in the face 50 feet from your property, would this
be something you would want in your backyard? Would you consider this a selling point
if someone wanted to buy your house or land, would you admit to the field behind you?
Mr. Gartenhaus thought not, and this was his whole case for why he thought the school
would decrease his property value if it goes ahead as currently planned. Do you really
believe the school made any fundamental changes in their plans? Do you believe our
concerns have merit and deserve 30 more days to be resolved? Do you really believe the
school will change its plans to accommodate our concerns after the approval when they
have been unwilling to do so thus far (in Mr. Gartenhaus' opinion). The school has
angled the field, preferable for most of the neighbors, but for lot 97, it is unacceptable.
There appears to be a lot of uncertainty. A proposal by Mr. Fisher and his attorney is
99% agreeable to Mr. Gartenhaus, but if there hasn't been time to do it, why not grant
another 30 days to get the two parties together? If the positioning of the field affects Mr.
Gartenhaus' property in a negative way, it was his belief that the Board should reject the
Special Use application.
John Smeltzer, attorney representing Jeff Fisher, asked for some clarification. In terms of
the 400 feet, if the School would commit to the plan on the board, Jeff Fisher is satisfied.
The plan does not show any permanent seating, any concession stands, or any stadium
surrounding the athletic field or track and field facility as proposed. If the School will
commit that that is what is going to be there, Mr. Fisher is satisfied. What is not
satisfying to Mr. Fisher is the situation that the School can come in after the Special Use
approval and it is then beyond the Board's control--that will be treated as an accessory
and they will not have to come in for any other approvals. If they decide to put a stadium
up, they can do that. The 18 feet will not appease Jeff Fisher if he knows it can be higher
than that. If Mr. Fisher knows it will be a simple field with spectator benches and seating
s:\BoardofLoningAppeals\bza2000apr 13
for the participants, he is willing to go with the plan today. As a lot owner, Mr. Fisher
would like to know if the petitioner can return to the Board in 7 years and make a
proposal on the track and field facility. If so, Mr. Fisher would just as soon sell his lot
now as wait for the decision to be made in 6 years, 10 years, whatever it may be. The
400 feet--it is 450 feet on the plan to the first permanent structure--we took off 50 feet.
Again, it doesn't mean much to Jeff Fisher if he knows these are simply going to be
athletic fields without permanent, stadium type features. A stadium type feature does not
require any kind of variance or ADLS approval--it doesn't have a roof, it is still a large,
concrete block structure immediately out his back yard. Clarification is needed. In fact,
Mr. Fisher is not opposed to the Special Use, but would just like to know what is going to
be in his back yard--this year, next year, five years or fifteen years.
The tennis court on the lower right corner is going to be lighted, we didn't object to that.
The 150 feet off-street parking is exactly the figure that we came up with to their parking
lot. If they cannot commit to it now, what is the point of having the master plan if there
are no commitments?
Mr. Smeltzer stated that the Statute specifically allows the Board to place conditions on a
Special Use, or additional commitments can be asked for. We do care that we know what
is going to happen on the southern boundary. Without such a commitment,the school
can build an athletic field incorporating permanent seating, restroom facilities, outdoor
lighting, concession stands, and other stadium like features without review at a public
hearing. That is why we are here tonight. If the petitioner will commit to the master
plan, we are satisfied.
Jeff Fisher then addressed the Board and referred to the meeting that was held between
the High School and the adjoining homeowners and property owners. Depending on how
it is phased, the "Track and Field" could be relocated where the soccer field is, north of
the pipeline easement. At present,the School does not show bleachers, lighting,
concession stands, restaurants, etc. on their master plan. During discussion, the school
was unwilling to commit to the location of the bleachers, stands, etc.
Mr. Fisher felt that the entire situation boils down to risk. Since this is a Special Use in
an S-1/Residence zone, the School should bear the risk of their design development in
meeting some sort of commitment rather than a blank slate to work from.
Before rebuttal by Mr. Coots, Charles Weinkauf asked about the existing pipeline
easement and if perhaps the track and field could be placed over the easement.
Dave Coots responded that the pipeline easement owner was reluctant to permit crossing
the pipeline with pedestrian pathways. The petitioner is not permitted to plant trees,
install athletic facilities, or develop the easement in any way. It will remain a green,
grassy area.
Mr. Coots further commented that the proposed use is a Special Use application; the use
was contemplated at the time the zoning ordinance was written and it is not something
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza7000apr 14
that the Comprehensive Plan or Master Plan requires an amendment, nor is it a zoning
amendment. Rather, it is a Special Use in a residential area and in Mr. Coots' opinion,
the evidence shows that the criteria has been met and the Special Use should be granted.
In regard to negative impact on property, at the meeting in March, Mr. Coots submitted
an opinion from a realtor that a school would not have a negative impact on adjacent,
residential properties.
In response to Mr. Donaldson's comments regarding the landscape plan, the commitment
according to the buffer yard guidelines is a commitment that the petitioner is obligated to
fulfill. The 50 trees in addition to the guidelines will be installed in areas to buffer
existing residences. The entire eastern boundary will meet the buffer yard guideline
requirements; the additional low-level screening is to screen the parking from the
residences immediately to the east of the parking area.
The petitioner is willing to commit to this plan as "substantially" the plan he will follow.
To say that all things on the plan are located where they will be and where built will be
affected by financing, the rate of growth of the school, and a number of other factors.
The petitioner cannot commit that this is "the plan" that will be developed. However, it is
not the intent of the petitioner to engage in controversy with the neighbors every time he
seeks approval to have something built.
Comments and Questions from Board Members were as follows:
Charles Weinkauf commented that the majority of concerns centered around the track and
field. Is it ever perceived that this would be a full-fledged football field with a stadium
and lights, etc.? As currently laid out, could the track and field be placed where the
soccer field is proposed?
Mr. Coots responded that at the meeting with the neighbors, the question was asked if the
performing arts building could be flip-flopped with the athletic building and have the
athletic facilities farther to the north where the soccer field is located. There is nothing
that says this cannot be done. The layout plan was not re-drawn--there are certain
parking considerations (closer to the athletic facilities) flip-flopping the buildings,
leaving parking as is, re-locating the athletic fields to the north and parking to the south--
there are a number of considerations in the process.
Ben Rawlins with Oldham, McGuire & Shook, architects, commented that just on
physical space available for the track, and from a programmatic standpoint as well, when
the first phase building opens, (the building at the northwest corner of the site)there
needs to be some sort of athletic field opening with that for the school's physical
education programs. What is not shown on the plan are all existing farm buildings in the
area that are not slated to come down until phase two or afterwards. In order to install the
track and field in the proposed location, most of the buildings in the first phase would
have to be demolished. This is a monetary as well as a timing issue. The track will not fit
in the space shown for the soccer field without significantly altering the other buildings
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 15
shown in that area. There are also grading restraints in that area because of a major swale
that runs through the area south of the parking lot shown on the plan.
Earlene Plavchak asked if there were a physical restriction in flip-flopping the track and
field with the softball/baseball fields? This would allow the track and field to be located
farther north and the ball diamonds farther south and the outfields of the ball fields would
face the Kingsmill Subdivision with home plate in the center.
Ben Rawlins responded that there is a playability restriction and the best orientation for
baseball or softball is from home plate to second base to the north/northeast or north/
northwest. To face the diamonds south would be a playability problem.
Dave Coots proposed the following compromise. If the Board were to approve the
northwest portion of the school's application so that they could proceed with the
construction of that facility, the school would then meet with Mr. Gartenhaus, Mr.
Smeltzer, Mr. Fisher, and perhaps one or two Board members so that they could work
through some of the technical types of questions that would save the Board considerable
time this evening. If there were a committee structure to review this, comments could be
traded with adjacent property owners and concerns from the Board members.
Charles Weinkauf responded that it would be totally contrary to the normal function of
the Board to operate in that manner. The willingness to meet with the property owners is
certainly one thing, but not with any Board member present.
Pat Rice's comments: The problems of the property and the layout has to do with the
pipeline; there is a lot of property that is not able to be used because of the pipeline. The
homeowners are not the ones who should be asked to make the concessions and bear the
consequences of that problem. Had there been no remonstrance, there would have been
no reason to question the lack of some of the commitments; however, it is the
responsibility of the Board to question these issues on behalf of the public and
particularly the landowners. The Board knows the difference between commitment and
intent, and this is in no way to question the integrity of the petitioner or the attorney, Mr.
Coots. Once a variance is granted, the public loses the recourse of action that has been
heard this evening, and there does seem to be a number of outstanding issues with
adjacent property owners. Mr. Gartenhaus brought to the Board some very specific
issues that deserve very specific answers--what he said is important--he doesn't want to
keep coming back before the Board because of lack of commitments from the petitioner.
One of the questions is, "Why not commit to the plan?" Then, if you want to make
changes, come back to the Board, but make those commitments. Perhaps not all the
commitments are necessary, but that is why there needs to be more time for the details to
be worked out. There are a lot of commitments that are important to the homeowners.
Ms. Rice stated that she was not opposed to the school and did not want her remarks
taken in that context. The reason for the Board of Zoning Appeals is for petitioners to
receive approval prior to commencement of work. From the last meeting and this
evening's meeting, this appears to be a "done deal." How is it that an assumption had
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 16
been made that this property would be approved for Special Use? It is as if the Board is
being asked to automatically say "Yes" to something that has a lot of issues connected
with it. These issues should be resolved before plans are made. What happens if the
Board approves the first phase, and the balance of the proposal just simply could never
get worked out? What happens then to the school, the property? What will the petitioner
be able to do on the pipeline? In other areas, it depends on who owns the pipeline as to
what can be done. There is a lot of land with this proposal, and there will be a lot of
children--what will happen in the area of the pipeline? At some point, the Board must
continue in order to work out more specific commitments with the landowners and
particularly with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Gartenhaus, because they have brought up some
very real issues.
Charles Weinkauf commented that he agreed with Pat Rice's comments concerning the
pipeline and the vast amount of land that seemingly will go unused. Mr. Weinkauf stated
that he was a little taken aback at Mr. Coots' comment that the owner of the pipeline was
willing to allow for vehicular traffic to pass over the pipeline but was opposed to
pedestrian traffic. Is there a real risk here or a danger in the pipeline being there? What
kind of pipeline is it and does it pose a safety risk?
Ben Rawlins' response: It is a Panhandle Eastern Pipeline; there are four, high-pressure
gas lines that run through the site--they do not start at our property, they don't stop at our
property. The pipeline makes a wide swath through this area. If you were to look at
Bridlebourne Subdivision to the southwest, you will see a beautiful, manicured, 150 foot
wide lawn between the two parallel roads. It is not because that is in the developer's best
interest, but rather because they were not allowed to put anything in there,just as we are
not allowed to put anything in there. Pipelines are very specific about how we can cross
their pipeline with a road and that is as perpendicular as we can get it which is 90 degrees
to the pipeline. Parallel roads are not allowed, neither are paved sidewalks; however, a
mulched sidewalk might be considered. Trees are not allowed, and due care must be
exercised in the area during any grading and construction. No structures are allowed, no
parking, no lighting because of underground work. There are, however, residential
developments all up and down the pipeline that have to deal with these same restrictions.
Pat Rice: What about children playing in that area? What will be the restrictions? Will
it be fenced off? What is presently shown is a project that bisects the pipeline, so you
will be on both sides of the pipeline. What about the children?
Ben Rawlins' response: Unless the children are out there with digging equipment, there
would be no risk involved, anymore than any of the other subdivisions. Mr. Rawlins was
not aware of any fencing around the pipelines. The Pipeline company does not want a
paved path across the pipeline, except for a road. Pedestrians can walk across the ground,
but there can be no grading on the ground. At completion of the development, the
pipeline would look like a manicured lawn and children could have free activity.
Dave Coots' response to Pat Rice's comments: Contrary to the assumption that this is an
automatic, a "done deal," it is far to the contrary. Chuck Webster spoke last month about
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 17
the organizational Board of the school, membership of the board, and the fact that the
plans for constructing the school accelerated due to successful fund raising, and this piece
of property at this time is desirable. Hopefully, the school has planned for a longer
period of time that two or three months to undertake such an enterprise.
Phil Himmelstein, 502 Forest Boulevard, appeared before the Board and responded to Pat
Rice's question as to what would happen if the Board turned down the petitioner's
request. Mr. Himmelstein stated that he is one of the original organizers of the effort to
create University High School, and that this has been about a three year process thus far.
Several possible tracts of land were looked at, and it has been difficult to find a tract of
land that is appropriate for this use and meet the needs of parents in the geographic area.
If, for some reason, this was not approved, the school would sell the property, probably to
a developer, to be developed under the current residential guidelines, and the school
would seek another location.
Dave Coots stated that in terms of committing to the proposed plan and then returning to
the Board from time-to-time for modifications to the plan, the school would be willing to
commit to that--but it may not be in the best interest of the Board. Certainly, Mr.
Gartenhaus is already objecting to the trip to Cannel from Greenwood to attend the BZA
meetings. The petitioner is willing to commit to this plan and return to the Board as time
required Variances or modifications to the plan. Frankly, the petitioner was trying to be
as "up-front" with the Board and with the adjacent property owners as possible by saying
that this is what they really want to do, and if all the money were in pocket right now, we
would do this--but we don't. So, it will come in stages and the petitioner will return to
the Board at each stage to show the Board what is being done and Plan Commission
approval of the aesthetics. Fields can be tweaked, buildings can be moved, but we can
commit to this as a plan and come back to the BZA for modifications as time goes by.
The petitioner opted NOT to do that, but if the Board will only approve on the basis of
the plan as presented and request that the petitioner return for modifications or changes,
the petitioner is willing to do so.
Leo Dierckman asked if the petitioner were willing to take the risk of getting approval on
something north of the pipeline and leaving the balance of it with no Special Use.
Dave Coots responded that if, in order to get the northwest project under way, the Board
determined that the ground be divided and construction begin on the northwest portion of
the ground--no guarantees as to the balance of the site--that is not desirable--No, the
petitioner is not willing to do that. The Special Use for the entire site is desired;the
petitioner is willing to return to the Board for conditions for the balance of the site.
Leo Dierckman stated that it is the southeast portion that has created all the havoc and it
would appear that if there were an issue with the balance of the site and no conclusion
was ever reached, the petitioner would be able to sell the balance of the site for some
other use. There would be a certain amount of risk if the Board granted a Special Use for
the entire site, and the Board is not able to do that at this time because of the number of
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 18
outstanding issues. The northwest part of the site does not have as many outstanding
issues.
Dave Coots asked if the application were bifurcated as to Special Use approval and the
Variance approval on the northwest portion of the site, could the School be kept on the
Agenda for the May meeting, assuming that the petitioner has worked out the
commitments.
Leo Dierckman commented that if the commitments could not be worked out, the
petitioner might be prepared to sell the southern portion of the site. It is critically
important in dealing with this type of use in a compact area that the petitioner be
cognizant of the neighbors.
Charles Weinkauf commented that he had gone over the situation in his mind, the pros
and cons, and could not see a great objection to having fields with young people at play
in his back yard. Lights and loudspeakers are a different thing, although IF it became a
football stadium 15 years from now and became a part of the IHSAA setup, there would
be a maximum of 5 home football games through the course of one school year--5 nights
out of 365 days for a home football game. This may be being blown out of proportion.
Charles Weinkauf asked legal counsel about dividing the petition into portions north and
south, and whether or not the petitioner could re-phrase the petition in such a way that the
Board could grant approval tonight(on the northwest portion of the site.) There is a real
concern among members of the Board that there has not been enough conversation with
the adjacent property owners who have legitimate concerns. If the Board were forced to
vote on the entire issue this evening, the outcome might be a motion to table. If the
petitioner were willing to divide his petition, is it legal under the notice given or does this
case have to be enacted upon by the Board in its entirety.
John Molitor explained that there are two ways of looking at this situation. If you
literally bifurcated into two Agenda items, it would seem that it could be proper to move
ahead and reduce the pending application to an application for only the northwest
segment. However, it would also seem that that would require a new petition to be filed
for the remainder of the site. It is uncertain if all notice requirements can be met to even
get this on the Agenda for the month of May, although the Board could consider waiving
some rules in order to accommodate this situation. Alternatively, you could look at
granting an approval subject to commitments that essentially, the entire plan for the
southeast portion of the site would have to return to the Board of Zoning Appeals for
further review before any permits could be pulled for that segment of the plan.
Essentially, the Board would be requiring the petitioner to make a commitment that they
would return to the BZA with a full blown petition to modify the commitment or modify
what is shown at present.
Leo Dierckman commented that splitting the site would be preferred, even if you had to
re-notice. Given the scope of the issues at hand, it may not be timely for the May agenda.
If the issue is being able to move on and get things started for the next school year, it
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza'000apr 19
would seem that the petitioner would significantly want to consider the northwest portion
and return at a later date, maybe 90 days, for the balance of the site.
Earlene Plavchak referred to a memo from the Department of Community Services
requesting that at each phase of subsequent development, the petitioner will appear
before the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission for Architectural Design, Lighting,
Landscaping and Signage approval and that all such petitions be noticed. Isn't that
essentially what Mr. Molitor said, that this is not split into two Special Uses, it is one
Special Use. The Board can approve what is on the northwest corner, but anything on the
southeast corner would be covered under Plan Commission review. Earlene asked for
further clarification from Mr. Molitor.
John Molitor responded that the Department is suggesting that if the Board grants the
Special Use, they would essentially be approving the use that is proposed. The
particulars, the aesthetic design, lighting, landscaping, and signage would have to go
before the Plan Commission. As previously stated, the Plan Commission has much less
discretion with respect to these items. If there is no violation of the Ordinance, the Plan
Commission is duty bound to approve whatever comes through, as long as it does not
vary the use permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Molitor suggested that the
Board grant the Special Use, subject to a commitment that the petitioner would return to
the Board of Zoning Appeals with their master plan for the southeast segment--not before
the Plan Commission.
Dave Coots commented that there would merely be a change in the wording of the
commitment to return to the Board of Zoning Appeals as opposed to the Plan
Commission. ADLS applications typically go before the Plan Commission rather than
the Board of Zoning Appeals. The petitioner is willing to return to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
Charles Weinkauf asked if Mr. Coots was willing to amend the petitions in such a manner
as to have the Board consider this evening only that portion in the northwest quadrant.
Dave Coots responded in the affirmative. The petitioner is willing to amend the
application for Special Use approval and the variance for height as it affects the real
estate described north of the pipeline. The petitioner is willing to defer to a subsequent
date, not more than 90 days, to return to the Board of Zoning Appeals after public notice
(unless the Board opted to waive).
Charles Weinkauf asked if there were any members of the public present who were
opposed to the amending of the petition as stated by Mr. Coots. The following persons
appeared:
David Farrihan, 9753 Summer Lakes, Carmel questioned the following: If one corner is
approved and the balance is not, then what?? Would he be sending his daughter to a very
small school for four years? Mr. Farrihan wanted assurance that this would be a full-
scale school before he commits to send his daughter there. Mr. Ferrihan wanted to know
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals1bza7000apr 20
that the entire project would be approved, maybe modified later, but the entire project
approved now.
Kevin Gartenhaus objected to the amendment of the petition on the momentum of the
issue. If the northwest quadrant is approved and the school is going to spend a significant
amount of money to build it, it would be difficult to turn the school down on the balance
of the site. Mr. Gartenhaus requested that the Board grant 30 days to come to an
agreement to accommodate his desires regarding the spectator field. The objection is not
to the noise of kids, but to the noise marching bands would make and loud speakers, etc.
Thirty days would give a lot of incentive for both parties to reach an agreement. Once
the northwest quadrant is approved, the momentum is too great for the neighbors to have
any significant impact.
Leo Dierckman commented that when it comes to personal preferences on how
something is designed, the Board functions to review from a community standpoint, not a
special interest from any one individual. Mr. Dierckman was concerned about all
property owners on the south and east sides, not necessarily Mr. Gartenhaus specifically.
Mr. Dierckman was in favor of limiting the current approval to the northwest portion. It
would be the School's risk--if the balance of the site is not approved for Special Use, the
School would have to sell the property.
Pat Rice commented that since the soccer field is part of the plan for that corner, and that
is one of the things that could be negotiated--it would not be a given and it would be part
of the negotiations. Pat Rice asked that the petitioner consider re-designing for the
benefit of all parties.
Charles Weinkauf asked if there were a practical problem if the Board tabled this matter
for 30 days.
Chuck Webster responded that there are two issues. One is that the School is trying to
target for the January term. The construction company has said that they could live with
a 30 day Table, but not another. The schedule has been compressed to the point that the
construction company is saying there is no more room. It would probably mean that the
building would not be up for most of next year. There is probably time to get four
portables up, but it would put at risk the ability to have programs in that building next
year. The fall term was to have started at a temporary site, but a fund-raising surprise
came to light that made it possible to develop the northwest corner of the proposed site.
The school was planned to start the fall term on the current ground with portable class
rooms. Chuck Webster was hopeful of moving dirt next week; no one knows for sure.
The difference would be whether or not there is a facility with a music room, gymnasium
and seminar rooms.
Pat Rice understood that this was the original plan until funds became available, and their
time schedule is not that far off from the original calculation. The petitioner desire to
move ahead, now that the funding is available.
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals\bza2000apr 21
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department recommends favorable considerable
consideration of the amended petition, SU-8-00, subject to compliance with the landscape
revisions requested by the Department.
Charles Weinkauf then closed the re-opened public hearing on SU-8-00.
Leo Dierckman then amended his motion to provide for the approval of the amended
version of SU-8-00, subject to the landscape review and approval by the department.
APPROVED AS AMENDED, 5 in favor, none opposed.
The public hearing on V-12-00 was then closed.
Leo Dierckman moved to Approve V-12-00 as it pertains to the variance for the 45 foot
tall classroom/gymnasium building to be located only in the northwest quadrant.
APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
There being no further business to come before the Board,the meeting was adjourned.
Charles W. Weinkauf, President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
s:\BoardofloningAppeals\bza2000apr 23