HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 05-22-06
City of Carmel
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
~onday,~ay22,2006
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday,
May 22, 2006, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members in attendance were Kent Broach, James Hawkins, Earlene Plavchak, Alan Potasnik and
Madeleine Torres, thereby establishing a quorum. Angie Conn and Mike Hollibaugh represented the
Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve the minutes ofthe April 24, 2006 meeting as submitted. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 4-0.
Mr. Molitor stated there was no new litigation. Iflitigation is filed, an Executive Session may need to
be scheduled before next month's regular meeting.
H. Public Hearing:
1h. Wal-~art (Gateway Pavilion)
The applicant seeks approval for the following Development Standards Variance:
Docket No. 06030013 V ZO Chapter 23C.08.02.B maximum 120-ft building
setback line
The site is located at 10950 N Michigan Rd. and is zoned B-3/Business within the US
421/ Michigan Corridor Overlay Zone.
Filed by Joe Calderon of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP.
Present for the Petitioner: Joe Calderon, offices at 600 E. 96th Street. A site plan was shown. This 22-
acre site is an unusual case. Fifteen plus of the acres are located within the Town of Zionsville
boundaries. The boundary line between Hamilton County and Boone County splits the property in the
middle ofthe parking lot. They have been going through two jurisdictions, which have presented a
number of challenges. From Carmel's standpoint, the first hurdle was cleared in March in terms of the
ADLS. The building lies within the jurisdiction ofZionsville. There is an outlot on the west side of the
building to meet Zionsville's requirements that the back of a building cannot face a public street. They
had originally purposed a gas kiosk as part ofthe site plan within the 120-foot maximum front yard in
Carmel. That was pulled offthe site plan in January. It would have been a struggle to meet the various
architectural requirements that are set forth in the Carmel Overlay Ordinance. Sometimes gasoline is
not part ofthe client's business plan or a desired use. They went through TAC and then Plan
Commission in February, when the front yard issue was raised for the first time. They tried to mitigate
what was raised at that time. They have added a substantial sized gazebo element on the northeast
comer of the property. They felt that would meet the requirement of a structure in the front yard. Also
part of their plan included the INDOT sidewalks and pedestrian network of walkways on their parcel
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
and adjoiners, so the gazebo would make sense from the public standpoint. A couple members of the
Plan Commission really liked the gazebo and it passed unanimously. Both sections are subject to the
US 421 Overlay standards in each jurisdiction. The real issue is that under Zionsville's jurisdiction any
building, per their overlay, must face Michigan Road and the back of any building cannot face a public
street. Therefore an outlot was created to the rear of the building to meet the Zionsville requirements.
That eliminated the ability to create an outlot in the front along Michigan Road. Some thought the
building could be moved to the 120-foot line and shift the parking into the back. The way other
retailers have handled the building setback was to create outlots. He shared photos of other large
retailers on US 421. Essentially outlots were created with smaller individual users. The Super Target is
set back probably as far as the proposed Wal-Mart building. The difference is they have a Fifth Third
Bank and an Applebee's within the 120 feet. They have the luxury of doing that because they do not
have to have anything in the back oftheir building. The shopping center at the southeast comer of
106th and Michigan has a retail center in front. The Marsh development on the northeast comer of 106th
and Michigan is set back over 200 feet from the Michigan Road right-of-way. There is a Village Pantry
on the comer that is approximately 120 to125 feet. There is a retail center set back farther than 120 feet
from Michigan Road. The prevailing development pattern in terms of retail has all been, in order to
comply with this requirement, to create outlots up front. The Wal-Mart site does not have the luxury to
do that due to the fact that an outlot had to be created in the back. To try to mitigate that, they have put
the gazebo for public use in front. Not all ofthe other properties that have created outlots have been
able to fully create lot coverage across the frontage of Michigan Road. Photos taken from the Michigan
Road sidewalks were shown. The one of the Super Target was taken between the bank and Applebee's,
straight back to the Target. Because of the stringent landscaping standards, he did not feel there would
be a sea of parking as the staff report described. They had taken the more stringent buffer standards
between Zionsville and Carmel. They have over 2,000 plantings on the site which would offset the
concern that staff raised in terms of creating a sea of parking. The point of the photo was to show that
even with outlot situations; the 120-foot setback line does not create an urban atmosphere where there
is a build-to line or a situation where the frontage of the parcel is completely covered with buildings.
Likewise with the Marsh building, there is a side facing on the parcel. They cannot orient the Wal-
Mart building to face north or south. Marsh's parking field faces 106th Street with a little parking to the
side. The west face of the Marsh building is over 200 feet from the Michigan Road right-of-way. A
picture was shown of the proposed gazebo which would mitigate the concerns of parking. A landscape
rendering was shown. There had been more plantings added that were not on the rendering. The packet
had shown a 2500 square foot building, which was minimum size, in the 120-foot setback. That plan
would create additional variances. They have a practical difficulty in developing the site. He
appreciated the staff comments and they have tried to meet the ordinances. With this client they had
tried to find an appropriate site that was zoned correctly and tried to develop it in accordance with the
prevailing ordinances. They thought they had done that until they found out it would be a front yard
issue. With the additional building, the site would not have onsite retention and that would need
another variance or waiver. He had three Findings of Fact that he read into the record.
1. It would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community. It is a general standard. They are providing significant and better landscaping,
more pedestrian access than they possibly could if there was another building closer to
Michigan Road. In the overall design of their site plan from a traffic standpoint, they have
had to create a frontage road connecting their north adjoiner and south adjoiner. That would
certainly be enhanced by the granting of this variance. They have made efforts to mitigate
by placing a structure within the 120-foot front yard. They are trying to provide something
that would be pleasing, good for the general public, providing some shelter, a place to stop
Page 2 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
and relax for those who might be running, walking or biking along the pathway that is
being built along the Michigan Road right-of-way.
2. Relates to effect of this variance on adjacent properties. He submitted that yet again that the
properties to the south and to the north are direct beneficiaries of the frontage road which is
set back about 180 feet. To introduce another building could very well change the location
of that and create significant changes to future development for those north and south
adjoining properties. They think that by allowing this variance and frontage road that they
have created in the location proposed, they are enhancing the value of the north and south
adjoiners. He had been told that the east adjoiner, Williams Realty which is undergoing a
shopping center development across the street, had tendered a letter of support to the Board.
In any event, he has had discussions with the west adjoiner. They are supportive ofthis
project. They have also engaged in discussions with the north and south adjoiners. He did
not believe they were here remonstrating and that they were fine with the proposal as set
before the Board.
3. Probably the most important finding is whether or not the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance will result in practical difficulties for use of this parcel. The parcel has
significantly more depth than width. The width ranges between 692 and 728 feet versus
depth of 1340 to 1570 feet. So they cannot bring buildings up to the east property line or
they will lose their ability because of the additional depth. This property is also subject to
another jurisdiction's rules and regulations, including a similar overlay ordinance. The
development standards of both the Zionsville and Carmel ordinances render the property
difficult to develop because they have to have the outlot for the back of the property rather
than the other similarly situated properties south on Michigan Road where outlots are
created in front. Not all of the development standards ofthe ordinance can be met, even if
they put a minimum-sized building up front.
He felt these were ample findings for the Board to consider favorably for this variance.
Remonstrance:
Organized: Mike Andreoli, an attorney with Andreoli & Jacob, 1393 W. Oak Street, Zionsville, IN.
Collectively he and his partner, Mr. Jacob, represent the Timber Ridge Homeowners Association, a
residential subdivision in Zionsville, the Wood Haven Subdivision in Carmel, the Downtown
Zionsville Merchants Association (35 businesses who organized a remonstrance against the applicant's
development plan and plat approval within Zionsville.) They also represent Steve and Vicky Snider of
Snider Excavating Development Group (the property adjoining this parcel on the west) and
Fanamation in the Bennett Technology Park adjacent to this parcel. They have the common goal to try
to assure that there is appropriate planning and zoning in and along the 421 corridor. When an
applicant needs a variance, then it is within the Board's purview to determine whether or not this
particular proposed project, not just the variance itself, is somehow violable of the public health, safety
and welfare of the community. Carmel and Zionsville have adopted Big Box ordinances and that
should be a factor in the Board's decision as to whether to grant a variance for a building of this size
and structure at that location. Specifically, as it relates to the strict application ofthe Zoning
Ordinance, will it result in practical difficulties in the use ofthe property? He thought that Mr.
Calderon felt there was a practical difficulty, because they cannot get what they want to build. That is
not the type of strict application of terms that will amount to practical difficulties in the use of the
parcel that the Ordinance was intended to determine. There is no physical impediment to allow the
orderly use and development of that property within the confines ofthe Ordinance. It is only because
Wal-Mart cannot locate a building of this size on that particular parcel that they need the Board's help
Page 3 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
and the variance. His clients are suggesting that the Planning and Zoning Ordinances of both
jurisdictions be met. They did not feel that Wal-Mart could legitimately suggest that the strict
application of the terms of the Ordinance would result in a practical difficulty in the use ofthe
property. It will result in a practical difficulty for their attempts to develop this property the way they
want to develop it, but not in the orderly use for development of that parcel in any other manner or
way. From a commercial standpoint, he felt that a 2 to 1 ratio of depth to width or width to depth was
more than sufficient to allow or provide for the orderly development of a property. If a width was five
or six to one, that might create some practical difficulties. There are a number of properties along the
corridor that have the 2 to 1 width to depth ratio that have found appropriate development on the sites.
A practical difficulty is not one of your own making, but is basically attributable to the property itself.
Rick Sharp, 1481 Stormy Ridge Court. He felt there was one item of correction. The Marsh and
Village Pantry gave rise to the Michigan Road Overlay Ordinance. They were approved and built prior
to the Ordinance. That made the City realize they needed to take steps to control the growth along
Michigan Road, because they did not want to end up with another Castleton. He was on the Plan
Commission at that time, chairing the Special Studies Committee. They wrote the Michigan Road
Overlay Ordinance. The plans the Petitioner presented ofthe proposed Wal-Mart was the type of
development the Michigan Road Overlay was written to prevent. It was not written to prevent the
development of Big Box retail, but to control the development of Big Box retail. The others, including
the Home Depot, are all effectively screened by out parcels. The other intent was to create a sense of
place along the Michigan Road corridor, not have it develop into a commercial sprawl, but to make a
streetscape and bring the buildings into some context with people. The idea of using the gazebo that
was pictured as satisfying those requirements was ridiculous. Maybe if they looked at the gazebo in
front of City Hall, they would have a better chance. The gazebo depicted would accommodate a one-
man band concert. He was not surprised that some of the surrounding property owners would probably
be supportive, because if the Overlay is abandoned then other property owners will use this property as
an example of why they would not have to meet the Overlay requirements. He felt this would be
creating a dangerous precedent for the remaining development along the corridor. He felt there was not
a problem with the property, but a problem with the desired use ofthe property. He did not feel the
City must approve every desired use. Carmel has had a very long tradition of quality. The reason is
because the City has steadfastly been willing to tell the Petitioner that they do not want the project in
Carmel. He ask the Board to continue to protect the quality of Carmel, particularly the quality of the
Michigan Road Overlay.
Rebuttal:
Mr. Calderon stated that it was not their intention to design something and then come crying to the
BZA that they cannot meet the terms ofthe Ordinance. They had already filed their ADLS and site
plan and had a public hearing before this issue came before them. They were on file well before the
Big Box Ordinances were adopted in either jurisdiction. There is State legislature that protects that.
The building they proposed is a permitted use and the size is permitted and it meets all of the other
requirements. The issue is if they can do an outlot development close to Michigan Road in front of the
store. They cannot because the outlot is in back ofthe store for the reasons stated. That is the practical
difficulty. There are no other parcels along Michigan Road that are split jurisdiction with a public
street in back of their parcel, that have to meet the requirements. If they could orient their building
north-south, they could easily meet the 120-foot requirement. They cannot do that because it must face
Michigan Road. They cannot have the parking in back because, for business reasons, a large retailer in
a suburban district would not do that. More importantly, to have the parking in back, there would be a
Page 4 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
direct conflict between the customers and the trucks unloading. They would not want the trucks
unloading in front ofthe building. It is not a hardship standard, it is a practical difficulty standard. He
respected Mr. Sharp's comments that the intent ofthe Ordinance was to create some kind of sense of
place. He also mentioned that was what the outlots were doing. None of the other users on Michigan
Road have to have something to the rear of the buildings in terms of an outlot. That is the difference
between those developments and this development and that is the practical difficulty. They were trying
to mitigate the concern with the gazebo. A small 2500 square foot building is not going to give total lot
coverage in front of the building. That was why they had significant landscaping so no one would see a
bunch of asphalt. It will be a nice attractive setting and the building behind that meets all the
architectural standards. It will enhance the quality of life for Zionsville and Carmel.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Hawkins called for the Staff comments.
Brian Shapiro asked to speak. He felt Mr. Calderon entered some information that was not true.
Mr. Hawkins informed him the Public Hearing was closed. A Board member could ask for
his comments.
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. The Department agreed with Mr. Sharp's statements. Also,
the Marsh store was built before the Overlay was created. The Department recommended negative
consideration.
Mrs. Torres asked when the 120-foot set back was created.
Mrs. Conn stated that was the Michigan Road Overlay created in 1998. It applied to the
whole corridor.
Mrs. Torres asked if outlots in the front would affect the parking requirements.
Mr. 'Calderon stated that would change the parking ratio that would be required. It would not meet the
parking requirements and would have to be redesigned. More importantly, they could not meet the
minimum size to create an outlot. Where the approved frontage road is located, if a line was drawn
there, it would make it less than three acres. Then they would need a different kind of variance.
Mrs. Torres asked ifthey had tried to have a variance in Zionsville to eliminate the building in
the back.
Mr. Calderon stated they have not applied for any variances in Zionsville. It has been contentious and
they have not decided if they will appeal the decision. It is a site plan approval situation and the site is
already zoned. If they do not meet it, they are to be told why they did not meet it. They are waiting to
see what happens. They felt they could not go before the Zionsville Board and ask for a variance to
have the back of the building face the street behind.
Mrs. Torres asked if they could have outlots in front if the building size ofWal-Mart was changed.
Page 5 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Mr. Calderon did not feel the outlots would meet the Carmel minimum tract size. It would be trading
one variance for another.
Mr. Potasnik asked ifthe purpose of the gazebo was to mitigate the setback requirements.
Mr. Calderon stated they had proposed the gazebo voluntarily. They had proposed pedestrian
connectivity that was not required by Ordinance and the gazebo would tie in with the pedestrian
walkways.
Mr. Potasnik asked if Mr. Calderon had been a part of any other development ofWal-Mart Superstores
and ifhe was familiar with the one on Keystone and 718t Street?
Mr. Calderon stated that he had been involved with'several in a little more than three years, but the one
on Keystone was before that time. He had been involved with the ones in Beech Grove, Lafayette
Square area and others in other cities in the state.
Mr. Potasnik wanted to know how far the one on Keystone sets back from the frontage road to the
outlots to the west. He was trying to visualize the proposed development.
Mr. Calderon stated it would be a guess, but it was probably several hundred feet.
Mr. Broach wanted to hear what Mr. Shapiro had to say.
Brian Shapiro, 4610 Woodhaven Drive, Zionsville, in Clay Township. He disputed what Mr. Calderon
had said about a Wal-Mart not wanting to position close to a road. He shared pictures showing a Wal-
Mart built close to a five-lane road in Mission Viejo, California. There were the five lanes and then a
buffer area in front ofthe Wal-Mart building.
Mr. Hawkins asked the function and use of the building in the back.
Mr. Calderon stated that it was about 2,000 to 2,500 square foot building. It was shown just so the
Town of Zionsville could see the lot could be developed. It would probably be an office building. In
order to go through the platting process at Zionsville, they had to show that the lot could be developed
in accordance with their standards for setbacks and parking.
Mr. Hawkins asked about the location of the 2,500 square foot building proposed for the front outlot.
Mr. Calderon stated that it was shown in front on this site plan specifically for this hearing. The
difficulty would be that it is less than the minimum track size. It is not really proposed as part ofthe
site plan.
Mr. Hawkins felt they were trying to do too much on the lot with the building in back and the gazebo
in front.
Mr. Molitor asked, for clarification, which minimum tract size Mr. Calderon was referring to.
Mr. Calderon believed it was a three-acre minimum tract size in the US 421 Overlay.
Page 6 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Mr. Molitor stated that was the minimum tract size for a development plan. It does not restrict the size
of an outlot. There is no minimum for the outlot as long as it conforms to the development plan that is
submitted. An outlot can be transferred or sold off after the development plan is approved, as long as
the outlot conformed to the development plan.
Mr. Hawkins asked ifthe road running north and south parallel to Michigan Road was in position and
could not be moved.
Mrs. Conn believed that it was placed by the petitioner as the best way to connect the north and south
parcels, ifthey were ever developed. She did not feel that exact placement was required, but was the
best location to connect the north and south parcels.
Mrs. Torres asked Mr. Shapiro if the building he had shown had surface or underground parking.
Mr. Shapiro stated that the California building screened the parking and eliminated the sea of parking.
Mr. Calderon made a point of clarification that Randall Art helped write the Michigan Road Overlay
and parts of it came from Dunwoody, Georgia and parts from some of the developments in Southern
California that the Board saw.
Mr. Hawkins made a motion in the negative to decline Docket No. 06030013 V, Wal-Mart (Gateway
Pavilion). The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0, thereby denying the
docket.
Mr. Molitor recommended that the Board delegate to him to prepare formal Findings of Fact based on
suggested findings from the staff and in consultation with the attorney for the remonstrators.
Mrs. Torres moved to have Mr. Molitor prepare the Findings of Fact. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0.
There was a brief recess while Mrs. Torres was away from the dais.
2h. Congregation Shaarey Tefilla Synagogue
The applicant seeks the following Special Use approval for a place of worship:
Docket No. 06030014 SU ZO Chapter 5.02 Special Uses
The site is located at approximately 3030 W. 116th Street and is zoned S-I/Residence
within the West 116th Street Overlay.
Filed by Joe Calderon of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP.
Present for the Petitioner: Joe Calderon, offices at 600 E. 96th Street. Also present were the project
engineer Mike DeBoy, DeBoy Land Services and Megan Strait, Peterson Architecture. The site map
was shown. The property is ten acres adjacent to, and west of, University High School on 116th Street.
They propose to build an approximate 17,000 square foot synagogue. A larger site plan was shown
with the rendering of the proposed building. In a Special Use situation, they are looking for
compatibility with the surrounding uses, existing zoning, street network, etc. They felt this was a
complementary use to the existing residential area. The parcel is large enough to accommodate the
Page 7 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
building and future growth of the congregation. The major street makes it a good site for the proposed
use. The overall site is rectangular. There is significant setback from 1 16th Street. Adjacent uses are the
Larkspur Subdivision to the west, Bridlebourne to the south and University High School to the east.
They have incorporated, as requested by staff, a multi-use path. They have met all the setback and
bufferyard requirements. The parking is on the east side ofthe property, away from the residential
which will mean less light pollution. They were sensitive to lighting concerns. A copy of the landscape
plan was shown. They will have 25-foot bufferyards around the perimeter of the property. The
drainage plan showed the flow of the site basically to the south with retention close to the southeast
comer, away from the residential on the west. One of the challenges with an undeveloped site is
coordinating future development plans, especially with University High School growing like it is.
There could be an opportunity to have retention offsite in the future. The utility plan was also pointed
out and the utilities are available. The main orientation ofthe building will face to the east due to
religious purposes. It is a tasteful building that will be compatible with the adjoining uses. The present
location for the congregation is in Marion County. A large number of congregants live in Hamilton
County, particularly on the west side. From their standpoint, this is a perfect location. The six Findings
of Fact were part of the Board's packet. They had met with staff and T AC and followed their
suggestions. He was not aware of any remonstrance. He did receive an email from a couple over the
weekend that did not get public notice. He had checked his Hamilton County Auditor's list and they
were not on the list. He did send them a packet of information.
Remonstrance:
Don Bryenton, 11521 Nicole Court, in Larkspur, adjoining the property. He wanted some
clarifications. He stated there were several people who adjoined this property that did not receive
notification. He was only aware of two that did receive the notification. They do applaud the petitioner
for putting the drive and parking on the east side of the building, away from Larkspur. They had lived
next to a house of worship before and knew that one thing that happened was the plans were good, but
funding was not always available. The buffer zone and landscaping were nice, but what will be their
requirements and timing to make sure that the buffer is developed up front. Secondly, he wanted to
know the long-range plans for the southern portion of the parcel. They were showing a retention basin,
but there is a large field that exists between the basin and the residences. He wanted some assurance
there would not be parking or lighting in the future.
Rebuttal:
Mr. Calderon stated a building expansion area would be to the south. They would need to notice the
neighbors before coming to the BZA for approval of any expansion as an amendment to the Special
Use. Several members of the congregation were present and could answer the funding question. It was
his understanding that the fund-raising would be ongoing. This would probably be a next year project.
They could not apply for the building permits without being in compliance with the bufferyards.
Bob Glen, 11647 Oak Tree Way, Chair ofthe Building Committee. The plan is to work with
University High School to use their dirt from their new construction for the berm and buffer between
the congregation and Larkspur. The funding will include the landscaping. There should be no time
difference from the completion of the building other than weather conditions and plant availability. He
believed they had six months from the completion ofthe project to get the planting done. But they plan
to landscape immediately.
Page 8 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Mr. Calderon stated that for the notice issue, they had gotten the certified list from the Hamilton
County Auditor's Office. He doubled checked his list and all the certified mailings that went out
matched the list. He believed they complied with the notice requirements.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. The site lies within the newly adopted 116th Street Overlay
that requires a 100-foot front yard. Since it did complement the residential uses and the high school
use, the Department recommended positive consideration with the dedication of road right-of-way and
proper placement of the ground sign off that right-of-way.
Mr. Broach asked about a berm along Larkspur with the 25-foot planting strip.
Mr. Calderon confirmed there would a berm within the 25-foot planting strip ifit pleased the Board
and the neighbors.
Mr. Broach asked if it was practical, could they put the berm in before they started building? He also
wanted to know about the loop that looked like a turn around.
Mr. Calderon did not know if the berm would impede running the utilities, but they would try to
accommodate the neighbors and would work with them.
Megan Strait, 12130 Royalwood Court, Fishers, IN. She stated the loop in the back was to the entrance
in the back of the building for the kitchen and gymnasium and deliveries to that area.
Mrs. Torres wanted a commitment for a six-foot berm.
Mike DeBoy, offices at 501 S Ninth Street, Noblesville, IN. He stated they were looking at 3-foot
berms, because they would have to be careful to not trap water on the other side and also the issue of
maintenance of the bufferyard area.
Mr. Bryenton wanted to know how tall the berm would be. A three-foot berm would give the trees a
boost. He was concerned about the garbage truck coming early in the morning. The building would
provide a sounding board for the noise from the truck. A tree berm could provide a noise buffer. There
are drainage issues with the lot. Larkspur drains to a retention basin at the south end. They will need a
drainage corridor to separate Larkspur from the synagogue's property.
Mr. Hawkins assumed drainage issues had been addressed with the current plan. He did not want the
Board to require a berm that would adversely affect Larkspur.
Mr. DeBoy stated that the general drainage ofthe project would be from northwest to southeast.
University High School has been required to provide a drainage outlet at the approximate southeast
comer. The pattern of the drainage is fairly flat, but it does have a tendency to fall in that direction. For
the berm issues, they anticipate using a swale or sub-surface drains that will go under the berm to pick
up the water and take it back to the main drain. They do not want to trap water and create a problem
for the neighbors or the property.
Page 9 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Mrs. Conn stated that the Department would be in favor ofthe berm as long as it had no adverse
effects. The Petitioner could come back with a revised drainage plan or it could be approved
contingent upon a positive drainage plan.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 06030014 SU, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla Synagogue,
including the berm as long as there is. no adverse effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach
and APPROVED 5-0.
3-4h. Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church
The applicant seeks approval for the following Special Use and Development Standards
Variance approvals:
Docket No. 06040011 SU ZO Chapter 5.02 Special Uses
Docket No. 06040012 V ZO Chapter 5.04.01 Building Height
The site is located at the northeast comer of 106th St. and Shelborne Rd. and is zoned S-
l/Residence. Filed by Larry Kemper of Nelson & Frankenberger.
Present for the Petitioner: Larry Kemper of Nelson & Frankenberger. Present from the congregation
were Father Taso, Dennis Dickos, Tony Philis. Shaun Ryan from Weihe Engineers and Christ
Kamages, the architect, were also present. Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church is the oldest Greek
Orthodox Church in Indiana, incorporated in 1910 and originally located in Indianapolis on West
Street where the Indiana State Historical Museum now stands. In 1960, the parish moved to the
northeast comer of 40th and Pennsylvania Streets in Indianapolis. They have often shared their
facilities with neighborhood groups. Due to changes in demographics of the parish and parishioners,
the church purchased 20 acres of land in 1998. The southern boundary of the property is 106th Street
and the western boundary is Shelborne Road. The residential uses surrounding the property are English
Oaks to the north and to the east is a large estate residential property. Huntersfield Subdivision is to the
south, to the west is Fire Station #42 and a Mormon Church is to the northwest. A site plan for the
church was shown. They propose to construct the church in two phases. The two phases were pointed
out on the site plan. They propose to begin construction on Phase 1 immediately. Phase 1 will consist
of 39,500 square feet which will include the sanctuary and worship areas, administrative offices,
nursery and kindergarten rooms, a library and meeting rooms. The sanctuary will seat a congregation
of 500. The parking for Phase 1 will be located primarily along 106th Street. The two entrances are
proposed off 106th Street and Shelborne Road. Only the entrance off 106th Street will be constructed
with Phase 1. The entrance offShelbome Road will be added with the construction of Phase 2. Phase 2
will consist of approximately 25,600 square feet and will comprise of large and small meeting halls, a
kitchen and storage areas. The church anticipates construction of Phase 2 in 5 to 15 years. That will be
a matter of finances. They will have a large retention pond along Shelbome Road and another wet
retention pond in the southeast comer ofthe site. There will be extensive landscaping along the
perimeter in compliance with Class D in the Carmel Ordinance. The site plan did not show the
complete buffering that continues along the eastern perimeter. They have met with Scott Brewer and
have come to an agreement regarding the buffering and landscaping in that area. The church held a
neighborhood meeting and the neighbors attending were primarily from English Oaks and the neighbor
to the east with the large estate property also attended. At the neighborhood meeting, the primary
concerns were with regard to drainage and buffering. The drainage situation should be improved with
the construction and improvements to the site. Some neighbors to the north expressed a desire for
additional buffering as well as removal of some parking spaces. Consequently, they revised the site
Page 10 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
plan and eliminated about 17 parking spaces. They also agreed to include a three to four-foot berm
adjacent to the turn-about area on the north edge ofthe parcel. They agreed to plant Norway spruce
trees that were 8 to 10 feet in height to provide maximum screening year round. This was specifically a
request ofthe O'Neil's who are adjacent to the area. Since the neighborhood meeting, they had been in
contact with the O'Neil's for the last several weeks. One other communication they had received was a
letter from Judy Hagan, the Township Trustee, about connectivity to the perimeter path. They have
revised the plans and included more connecting paths. (He pointed them out on the site plan.) The
Church requested that they only be required to include two connecting paths with the construction of
Phase 1. The other paths would function with Phase 2. If they were installed with Phase 1, they would
need to be tom out to complete the construction of Phase 2. An artist's rendering was shown of the
church after the construction of Phases 1 and 2. The proposed church will be Byzantine-style
architecture, which is visually appealing and will be unique to this area. The nationally renowned
architect, Christ Kamages, with CJK Design Group in San Francisco, created this design. He has
similar projects around the country. One of the prominent architectural features is the dome which
exceeds 35 feet. A few other portions of the church exceed the 35 feet which is the maximum building
height under the S-l Zoning Classification. An illustration was shown with the varying heights of the
building and the portions which exceed the 35-foot requirement. The lesser dome and other features
exceed the 35 feet by no more than 5 feet. The primary dome will be 65 feet with a cross on top that
would be a maximum of 10 feet, making the total height 75 feet at the highest point. The dome will be
an internal open area which is not capable of being occupied. Within the context of the structure, the
height ofthe dome is proportional. The building sets back significantly from the boundaries of
the property.
Christ Kamages, 594 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA. One of the interesting issues when
considering the architecture for an Orthodox Church is the theology that goes back 2000 years and an
architectural tradition that goes back 1400 years. The distinguishing feature of Byzantine architecture
and the Orthodox Church architecture is the dome. The dome is a circle and the circle has a lot of
interesting geometric, physical and theological meanings. The dome represents eternity; there is no
beginning and no end. The Orthodox Church sanctuary will face in an easterly direction towards
Jerusalem, the rising sun and the New Zion. The dome is also a source oflight which is God's light
touching everyone inside the worship space. From an external representation, the dome is also a
crowning glory. The interior is a representation of heaven. Pictures of Byzantine churches were shown.
The various levels are a progression of stepping up. The dome will be proportional with the building.
Mr. Kemper summarized. Construction ofthe proposed church is very important to the Greek
Orthodox Church and it will not be injurious to public health, safety and welfare. The use and values of
the adjacent properties will not be adversely affected, as the church is a less intense use of the property.
It is complementary to the surrounding properties. The Church is a proposed benefit to the community
as a whole as it provides architectural diversity. If the variance is denied, the Church will be denied the
opportunity to construct the Byzantine structure which is very important and relevant to the Orthodox
service. The variance for height is not unique as several others have been granted within the Carmel
community.
Remonstrance:
Joe O'Neil, 10726 Stratton Circle, in English Oaks. His family lives at the north border ofthe church
parcel. From their south windows, they have a view of the parcel, including the northern driveway and
parking area and will be impacted by the construction. The English Oaks common area on the south of
Page 11 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
the subdivision is used by many children. They are requesting certain conditions be imposed on
granting the Special Use application to reduce the impact on their property. A site plan was shown
indicating their home site. They have met with the attorneys for the church and indicated the plan
changes that would minimize the impact of the church on their property value. The conditions are:
1. Limit parking lot #2 to 17 spaces.
2. Construct a 3 to 4-foot berm, approximately 20 to 25 feet wide, and approximately 150
feet long along the north property line during Phase I construction.
3. No improvement/construction zone between the berm and English Oaks Subdivision
boundary.
4. 8-foot Norway spruce or Canadian hemlock on top of berm on IS-foot centers plus
8- foot ornamental trees, all mulched.
5. Brick trash dumpster area on Phase I enclosed with gates facing away from English
Oaks Subdivision.
6. Outdoor lighting will be minimized with low wattage bulbs and in a position that does
not shine toward their property. Any free-standing outdoor lighting in the northern
parking lot will be limited to 12 feet in height.
7. Tall hedge shrubs, such as arborvitae, on the north edge to block car headlights before
parking lot is in use.
8. Preservation of existing trees within the English Oaks common area within 10 feet of
the property line (where some tree branches may extend onto the church property). If
any die within the first year, they should be replaced with like trees.
They feel they are the most impacted lot in English Oaks.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Rebuttal:
Mr. Kemper stated they had been in communication with the O'Neil's, primarily by email. They have
met most of the concerns. They have eliminated the 17 parking spaces and included a three to four-foot
berm with 8 to lO-foot Norway spruce or hemlock. They also agreed to stagger the plantings of these
trees with the ornamental trees. He had not been aware of a couple of the requests. They are already
doing the shoebox lighting which complies with Carmel's Ordinance and there will be no light spillage
onto adjacent properties. He thought the light poles were 15 feet in height, but they were taking
measures to eliminate light spillage. He felt they were primarily concerned with the lighting in the
north parking area in Phase 2 which may not be in place for 5, 10 or 15 years. From the northern
fayade of the Phase 1 structure, it is about 125 feet to the property line, plus another 75 feet to the
southern elevation ofthe O'Neil's home. Until Phase 2 is constructed, there will be significant open
space buffering the property. In addition, they will have the mounding and the plantings as per their
request and as approved by the City Forester. He was not sure where Mr. O'Neil wanted the tall hedge
shrubs planted. The 25-foot buffer area does not leave room for any additional plantings once Phase 2
parking is installed. He did not know how they could meet that request. They will also preserve any
and all trees on site that they can. Construction might require them to move and relocate trees. The
O'Neil's are concerned about the parking and there will be a 3 to 4-foot berm which will screen most
headlights from cars and SUV's. By the time that area is constructed, the trees, which are fast growing,
should provide additional buffering for the headlights. The church did purchase this property in 1998
which was before most of the neighbors purchased their properties. The developer, Craig Yon Deylen,
indicated they had made a point of disclosing to the neighbors, at the time they bought lots, that the
church did own the property to the south and someday there would be a church on the property.
Page 12 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. This item had gone before the Technical Advisory Committee
which addressed all technical issues. The Comprehensive Plan does state that aplace of worship is a
complementary use to a residential area. The Department recommended positive consideration of both
dockets with the condition that the right-of-way is dedicated. They did have an updated landscape plan.
Mr. Kemper stated they had no problem with the right-of-way issue and have revised the site plan to
accommodate that. They had resolved landscaping issues with the City Forester.
Mrs. Torres knew that Phase 2 would not take place for quite a while, but wondered ifit would be
more beneficial for the traffic flow to put in the two turn lanes coming out onto Shelborne when that
entrance is constructed, as they were doing onto 106th Street. For a reference, she wanted to know the
height ofthe towers in Coxhall Gardens. She wanted to confirm that the mounding and buffering
would occur in Phase 1.
Mrs. Conn stated the towers in Coxhall Gardens are 80 to 90 feet.
Mr. Kemper stated that all the perimeter landscaping would be installed with Phase 1.
Mr. Broach felt they had done a good job of addressing all the neighbor's concerns. He wanted to
clarify the trash receptacles.
Mr. Kemper pointed out the dumpster location in the diagram and the manner in which they would be
enclosed.
Mr. Hawkins asked if they would be approving Phase 2 at this time, or would the Petitioner need to
come back for Phase 2 approval.
Mrs. Conn stated that tonight's approval would be for Phase I and Phase 2. If the congregation decided
to expand more than what was proposed for Phase 2, they would need the Board's approval.
Mr. O'Neil asked about the trash receptacle in Phase 2.
Mr. Kemper stated there was one primary location. Everything else that was shown would be
mechanical areas.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket Nos. 06040011 SU and 06040012 V, Holy Trinity Greek
Orthodox Church with dedication oC right-oC-way and all commitments stated. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and both dockets were APPROVED 5-0.
Mr. Broach recused himself.
5h. Martin Marietta - Scale House
The applicant seeks the following Use Variance approval:
Docket No. 06040019 UV ZO Chapter 5.01 Permitted Uses
The site is located at 10851 Hazel Dell Pkwy and is zoned S-I/Residence.
Filed by ZeffWeiss oflce Miller LLP for Martin Marietta Materials.
Page 13 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Present for the Petitioner: ZeffWeiss, attorney with offices at 3400 One American Square. John Tiberi,
Martin Marietta, was also present. The site was shown. The site is located on the east side of Hazel
Dell Parkway which was recently mined with sand and gravel. With Docket No. UV 23-02, they
relocated the Carmel Sand Plant from the west side of Hazel Dell Parkway to the east side. The
relocation necessitated the moving of a scale house, which is where the truck drivers weigh their trucks
before and after loading. He felt the scale house was part of the overall sand plant. The structure in
question is a single-family home located on the property, sitting on about 2 acres. He indicated the
location on the site plan. The structure is a one-story, 1600 square feet residential-looking structure.
They are planning to have the business office for the Carmel Sand Plant in the house. There will be no
external changes to the structure. There will be some additional landscaping which he showed. There
will be a sign at the entryway which will require a sign permit. This proposal is not contrary to the
public interest. It is consistent with relocating the Carmel Sand Plant. Moving the scale house here will
avoid the necessity to run the trucks back and forth across Hazel Dell Parkway. There will be less
conflicting traffic and less noise to the neighbors. It is a good use of the existing structure. Since the
sand plant has been relocated next to it, it would not make sense to use the structure for residential
purposes. This proposal will not be injurious to the public health, safety and welfare of the community.
It will reduce general traffic as well as cross traffic and there will no noise or adverse affects to
anybody who resides in the area. There is no adverse effect on the adjacent land values. It will enhance
the adjacent values by moving the activity further away. This structure sits by itself along Hazel Dell
Parkway. The need arises due to a natural condition. This is peculiar because this structure sits alone
and is not part ofthe neighborhood. It is now adjacent to the Carmel Sand Plant and this would be an
appropriate use. This does not interfere with the Comprehensive Plan. It is located in the S-l District
and that use is permitted with a Special Use Exception that was approved under UV 23-02.
Procedurally they went through T AC and there were no questions ask in terms of anything they were
doing. There was a little clarification as to why the sand plant was going there and whether they were
going to make any physical changes. They will deal with the landscaping and take out any dead trees,
per Scott Brewer's suggestion. A landscaping plan was shown and Mr. Weiss described changes off-
mike. There was a question from the Staff about commitments. After discussion, it was decided there
was no need for commitments because there is nothing that is going to happen on this property other
than office activities during the business hours ofthe sand plant.
Remonstrance:
Bart Caylor, 116 White Horse Lane, Fishers, across the river from the Hazel Dell Landing Park which
is adjacent to the scale house. He wanted clarification of the hours of operation. There had been
construction at the plant until midnight and 2:00 am with lights and beeping from the backing of the
equipment. He wanted to know if there would be additional buffering between the scale house and
the park.
Brian Atkinson, 115 White Horse Lane, Fishers. With the hours of operation, it made sense to move
the scale house next to the processing plant. They were not in favor of the processing plant coming
closer to them. It is quite a bit noisier than it used to be. The main issue is that the processing plant has
its own noises and the scale house will have more noise with the trucks coming in and backing up.
Their house is directly across the river and the beeping noise comes right to their house. If there was a
way for the trucks to only go forward, it would certainly be appreciated by the neighbors. Maybe
evergreen trees would help mitigate the noise in the winter and the summer.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Page 14 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Rebuttal:
Mr. Weiss wanted to clarify that this petition was for the operation of the scale house alone. The issues
brought up by the remonstrators relate to the operation of the sand plant. The commitments that were
entered into with the relocation of the sand plant allowed for the operation ofthe plant from 6:00 am
until 9:00 pm, Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturday. The weighing and loading
out of materials are limited to 6:30 am to 6:30 pm and 8:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturday. The trucks do
move around, without having to back up, for the purpose of ingress and egress at the site. However,
they do back into the plant where the materials are loaded. But they would not hear that sound
generally outside of those hours. The plant can operate longer, but loading in and out is more limited.
For the scale house, they have not limited the hours. They do not anticipate working beyond a half
hour before and a halfhour after the plant is operating. Because the activity is all inside as office, they
did not see any reason to limit it. They would not hear anybody coming and going, it would only be the
lights in the house. There are not going to be any large lights outside.
Inaudible conversation with the remonstrators.
Mr. Weiss reported that the trucks will come in off Hazel Dell, weigh themselves, not on the scale
house site but adjacent to it at the plant. They will load up, come back and weigh themselves and then
head out, unless there is a problem with being overloaded. They would get out at the scale house, go
inside for their paperwork and come back out to their truck.
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. This area is surrounded by mining. The area surrounding the
site is also in the flood plain. The Department recommended positive consideration of the docket.
Mrs. Torres asked where the trucks were currently being weighed.
Mr. Weiss thought they were still being weighed across the street. They were using a temporary scale
as well as the original scale on the west side.
Mr. Hawkins asked if they had any intent of using the scale house longer than mining in that area or
should they put a time limit on the scale house in conjunction with the mining which could last as long
as 23 years. He did not want to see material being trucked in after mining was completed at the Carmel
location. Since transportation was one oftheir largest expenses, he did not think it would be
economically feasible. He wanted to tie the scale house to the mining or the processing plant, so that
they would expire at the same time.
Mr. Weiss conferred with Mr. Tiberi. They did not think it would be there longer than the processing
plant was in operation. It would depend on the stone and resources. Mr. Weiss reminded the Board that
in the Carmel Sand Plant relocation, there was no prohibition in terms of bringing material in to
process. He did not know if they would be opposed to tying the variance for the scale house to the sand
plant operation. He did not want to backdoor the issue of whether or not the sand plant could stay there
when they were out of sand and gravel at this location.
Mr. Molitor thought he had heard the Petitioner say they did not have any problem tying the scale
house with the processing plant. Maybe they would be wiling to make the commitment that the scale
house use would expire when the processing plant was no longer in operation.
Page 15 of 16
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2006
Mr. Weiss said they would have no problem with making that a condition that they could no longer use
it, maybe 12 months after the sand plant was no longer adjacent.
Mr. Hawkins told Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Caylor that unfortunately their comments, though very
relevant, did not apply to the scale house. Therefore, there was not a lot the Board could do. When
Martin Marietta applied to move the sand plant, it would have been the appropriate time.
Unfortunately, since they live on the other side of the river, they probably did not receive notification
of that meeting.
Mrs. Torres asked if Martin Marietta was operating the plant out of hours or not abiding by the hours,
who should the citizens call?
Mrs. Conn stated they could call the Department, 571-2417, and talk to her or Kevin Brennan, the
Code Enforcement Officer.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 06040019 UV, Martin Marietta - Scale House, as
amended that the scale house can exist up to 12 months after the sand processing plant ceases
operation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0.
6h. TABLED
Stonegate .Apartments off pFemise sigH
The applieaat seeks appf&v-al fer the feYewmg Qeyelepmeflt staBdoFds .18ri8Bee:
Do.t No. 0(;000018 V .zo ChapteF 2S.07.01 94 off p"mise sigH ill Fead
rigllt ef way
The site is leeateajast aeftlt efMeadew L8:B:e & MaiB Street aB<l is zelied R
4/R-esieeaee.
Filed hy Larry KftBper efNelseB & FfaBk-eaherger.
I. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
J. New Business
There was no New Business.
K Adjournment
Mrs. Torres moved to adjourn. The. motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. The
meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.
~
%~
James R. Hawkins, President
S:\Board of Zoning Appea1s\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2006\20060522.rtf
Page 16 of16