Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 07-23-90 IIPIIPV CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JULY 23 , 1990 9. Nicely stated that the petitioner agrees w ith all staff recommendations (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) with the exception that the site circulation needs reversed with regard to the car wash entrance and exit . The public hearing was closed at 8 : 44 P.M. Mrs . Badger moved to approve Docket No . SU 67-90 as presented. Mr. Klar seconded. Findings of Facts were completed by all board members . Unanimously approved. Mrs . Badger moved to approve Docket No. V 68-90 as presented with the exception that on the 6 dispenser valences the name "Maratho- n" be eliminated (which total 12 ) . Mr. Miller seconded. Findings of Facts were completed by all board members . Unanimously approved. 13g. 7 : 00 P .M. , Public Hearing on Docket No . V 69-90 a Developmental Standards Variance Application for Robert L. Lauth, Jr. and 4 . 20 acre tract of land located at 809 West 106th St . , Carmel . Petitioner is requesting variances from sections 26 . 1 . 1 and 25 . 1 . 3 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum building height from 35 feet to 50 feet and increase the maximum allowable garage area. Parcel is zoned S- 1 . Filed by E . Davis Coots for Robert L . Lauth, Jr. The public hearing was opened at 8 : 49 P .M. Ms . Sheila Marshall, 255 E . Carmel Drive, Carmel, made the presentation a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . The location and the development plan was shown. There were no comments from the public at this time . There were no elevations to be displayed at this time . The public hearing was closed at 9 : 52 P.M. Mr. Thompson moved to approve Docket No . V 69-90 as presented. Mr. Klar seconded. Findings of Facts were completed by all board members . Unanimously approved. 14g. Board to consider suspension of the Rules of Procedure CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JULY 23 , 1990 71111 to allow a Public Hearing on two( 2) Special Use ap- plications filed by the Carmel/Clay School Corporation . Special use approval is sought for a proposed 6, 000 seat stadium and several athletic practice fields on the north side of 136th St . just west of Keystone Ave . The second special use request is for a parking lot containing 450 parking spaces to be located on the southeast corner of Main St . (131st St . ) and 4th Ave. SE . Parcel are zoned R-1 and R-2 respectively. Filed by Tim Steven of Campbell, Kyle, Proffitt for the Carmel/Clay School Corporation . The public hearing was opened at 8 : 55 P.M. Mr. Steve Andrews sat in as attorney for this project . Mr. Tim Stevens, Land Use Consultant with Campbell Kyle Proffit, 198 South 9th Street, Noblesville, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Develo- pment . Ms . Debbie Farmer of Campbell Kyle Proffitt, Legal council for the School Corporation, Mr. Don Corto, the project manager in house at Everett I . Brown Co. , Mr. Bernie Schneider, operations on site project manager for Everett I . Brown, Mr. Daryl Hoffman, Project Engineer for the site design, Mr. Roger Harper, Business; Manager for the Carmel/Clay School Corporation, Mr. Tom Ford, with Pflum, Klaus Meyer and Gehrum who prepared the traffic analysis, Ms . Laura Miles, Landscape Architect with Everett I . Brown Co. were present . An aerial view, lighting plan, and a site plan was presented. Mr. Don Corto, discussed the elevations of the project . Ms . Laura Miles, Landscape Architect gave a description of what landscaping what was being planned for. Mr. Robin Gerst, 120 Carmel View Dr. spoke of her concerns about. the new parking lot, he is not against the parking lot, he is strong against the only entrance and exit off of 4th Avenue . Hi other concerns were the lighting, traffic and students walking. He is pleased about the ornamental fencing. Mr. Stevens stated that the idea was to segregate the pedestrian from the vehicle traffic which is why it was fenced, because we figured people would be filtering any way they please across Main Street particularly. The idea behind the only point of ingress and egress (pointed out on display) were thinking in concert witl, the staff regarding this versus the Main Street and am sensitive to the concerns . Speaking from a traffic engineering point consideration of this site we did not want to put that main po.`.oi r . CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JULY 23 , 1990 ii of ingress egress on to the main drive . Normally choose the lesser of the two in terms of its traffic characteristics for an outlet . We are shifting the demand that currently exists for parking on the North side and those people would normally come out on 4th St . that is being shifted over to the South side . The old parking lot will be covered by building to a large extent across on the north side . There will be some parking. We are changing that point of congestion at the intersection onto the south side and are releasing it onto to the minor street abutting Main . Mr. Stevens stated that he didn ' t think they had any plans for dimming the lighting at night, will be a consistent level of illumination but it will be rather low in terms of what you seen in terms of lighting intensity. Ms . Debbie Farmer, Campbell Kyle Proffitt, stated that the elementary schools and the high school dismiss classes at dif- ferent times and the elementary schools will be dismissed before the high school at the beginning and the end of the day. There- fore, the students will not be walking across the road and high school students driving at the same time . The elementary schools start school later and leave school earlier than the high school students . Mr. Stevens stated that in the parking lot design they shifted it to the east as much as possible to allow for additional space . The City Engineer and the Street Department Superintendent as well as the Community Development staff felt like an eventual alignment of this intersection would be a very much improved situation . Displayed a conceptual rendering on how that may look in the future . It will require further study by the city, determining how they want the alignment to occur and when the construction may commence . The idea behind the design and our offer for the dedication of right-of-way was to maintain flexibi- lity to improve that intersection geometry. Ms . Marilyn Thomas , 80 4th Ave S .E . , spoke of her concerns that there is a real problem with parking, traffic, children have little league practice and students have football practice and the drainage . Ms . Sally Rushmore, 340 Carmel View Dr. , concerned about no sidewalks on Carmel Drive and have to walk on the street and the traffic on Carmel View Drive . Mr. Tom Meganhart, 1940 E . 136th St . , Wind crest Farm, stated his concern of the noise and lighting from the stadium, the large number of students , would like a fence and landscaping to buffer from the high school parking lot . Also, the drainage of water CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JULY 23 , 1990 iz and the roadway expansion . He requested denial until a buffer, a fence and landscaping can be presented. Mr. Bill Fields , 18 Albert Court, stated his concern regarding drainage control, lighting hours , buffering area, and the in- creased activity after schools at the elementary school . Ms . Iris Balke, 14 Albert Court, spoke against this project regarding the parking lots , the traffic on Lexington Blvd. , the children crossing the streets, and losing green grassy areas in Carmel . Ms . Nancy Jacobs, 1945 E . 136th St . , spoke in concern of the roadway that will be built across Cool Creek, the tree preserva- tion, the traffic flow and increase, and the litter on 136th Street . Mr. Stevens stated that they would be putting up buffering and residuous trees and a 6 ' fence up along the Meganhart property. The buffer along the east side will be brought currently to the property line indicated on the survey, a 20 ' separation which they also have a D-gap situation, where are in the process of acquiring from the Holts tapers from 60 ' out the front to 30 ' in the back. What they would end up with would not be a 20 ' wide strip but a 70-50 ' wide strip along the property. Mr. Kett asked if the asphalt parking lot would go up to this gentleman ' s property? There will be a buffer? What is the plan if any, is there going to be space left the way it is round? Has there been any thought of mounding? Mr. Stevens stated that ultimately it would be no closer than 50 ' . We have got a 6 ' chain link fence being proposed along that side around the perimeter of the property. Ms . Debbie Farmer of Campbell Kyle & Proffitt stated that she had been involved with the acquisition . If any of you are familiar with adverse possession, essentially if you sit on property for long enough even though you don ' t have legal title to it you really do have legal title to it . They have a strip of land to the west that varies from 30-60 ' in width that clearly the people that own this from whom we are buying this right now, they possessed it they paid the taxes on it and they have it by adverse possession. The petitioner just has to get through the procedure of clearing up the title to it . There was a change made within the last week to 10 days in terms of the location of a water main to service this property originally. It had been tentatively been planned for underneath 136th Street, it has been relocated (as indicated) and that will carry with it the need to give to the City an easement along this D-gap when they get it . They will be looking at some landscaping plans for that area, but CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JULY 23 , 1990 13 they need to be consistent when they look at them with the easement that they will have given the City. Mrs . Badger asked is there running water availability that close to anyone living in that proximity and will they indeed be required to hook up to the water? Will there be a sewer line running there also? Mr. Stevens stated that they already have got access to the sewer main that runs down the southeast side of the property. It is on site and the petitioner will just tap into it . Mr.Tom Meganhart, 1940 E . 136th St . , stated that if it is propos- ed that they may buy it or may be able to condemn from the holes that is a little different than if they in fact do . He still feels that this should not be approved until there is some allowance made and would like to see something in black and white saying what they will do, the specifications and especially regarding fencing and landscaping and some 50 ' strip of grass sounds great until you realize that the cars are very close . This is a major concern to Mr. Meganhart . Mr. Kett stated that he has concerns regarding the parking lot, it is the most atrocious place in Carmel . Mr. Carlos Medina-Rodriguez , 2339 E . 136th St . , stated his concern regarding the traffic . Mr .Klar stated his concern regarding the parking lot . To have a parking lot at 4th Avenue is atrocious all day, not just during school hours . This is the poorest use for property in the middle of Carmel he has ever seen . He feels that the school needs to do some revaluating of this project for a parking lot . Mrs . Badger asked if a traffic report had been given on what impact this is going to have on existing traffic? Traffic reports were handed out to all board members . Mr. Tom Ford, of Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum Consultants , 47 S . Pennsylvania Ave . , traffic analyst, gave a brief overview of the traffic report . In the review of the study they reviewed the majority of the traffic generated by the expansion and the single most impact was going to be the Athletic Complex . They centered their activities around that and around Keystone, around 136th Street . They stated the conclusions and recommendations in the booklet, that with the growth of the student population that the vehicle trip endings at the school would grow (this was an estimate based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer Trip General Manual) current population is 1800 students, they es- timate that there is around 2500 vehicle trip ends daily occurr- CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JULY 23 , 1990 is ing at the school at various locations that they can park. It was anticipated to grow 3 , 000 students so it was estimated that there would be around 4, 155 vehicle trip ends . When they review in front of the school on Main Street, they looked at the general geometrics and there are four lanes in front of the school that end abruptly and begin and as they work towards Keystone it goes to a three lane section and becomes a four lane . They were intending that it appeared to them that there had been some efforts to mitigate the growth of the traffic due to the student population growth by adding the additional lanes . As the growth continued that would be a general occurrence and the traffic could be monitored and implementations could be done to the street system to handle that . One recommendation that they had was that the intersection at 4th Avenue and Main Street be closely scrutinized and that the offset be changed possibly. Need to take into consideration when they got this they were not exactly sure how many students would be crossing here, they simply recommended that this intersection should have further analysis performed on it . The analysis should include any parking facilities, pedestrian traffic maybe passing through the intersection. The preliminary site plans that they had indicated that the lot was going to be expanded, they didn ' t know exactly how many, certainly this intersection should be reviewed further. It was beyond the scope of this preliminary study though. Mr. Jim Miller stated his concern about the parking area, childr- en coming and going, after school programs . It is unsafe to have a parking lot in that area or practical . He has not been con- vinced that a traffic study has been done that shows that is a safe and viable alternative at this particular stage . It does not look to be a very safe or practical answer. Mrs . Badger questioned what is the great rush? When do you propose to open this stadium? This board might want to schedule a special meeting dealing with project . The board has not had a chance to review and request that the Department of Community Development to study this traffic study and respond with a report of their own . Mrs . Badger request that the DOCD hire an outside Traffic Consultant to study this report . Mr. Stevens responded stated that they have two applications pending and it sounds like we have a good deal of concerns that need to be worked out and looked at the south parking lot . The hurry on this project is really for preliminary grading and seeding, it is not for some of the other improvements that will occur on site that will be let at a later time . They are looking for the boards approval for the seeding, including certain improvements also such as piping, time is of the essence . They are talking about the north side of 136th Street , this is the one that is the rush. The opening of the stadium will not be until the beginning of August, 1991 . illiiiiir CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JULY 23 , 1990 15 Mr. Kett stated his concern regarding the length of time the board has had to study this information makes them uncomfortable about voting on this project at this time . Mr. Kett felt very uncomfortable about the parking lot information and suggested that the petitioner may want to table that item. Mr. Hal Thompson stated that the one thing missing is the projec- ting of the future of the content of pupils in the high school and the elementary school and that whole group of people . That is not addressed if you tie that to traffic . It is not only related to the traffic of the school but to the growth of the community. If you down Keystone into 31 there are projects out the ear related to office buildings , shopping and residential . This traffic report could be outdated before it is gets con- structed. That whole populous base is not related to the school students as a whole . Is it valid? Based upon age projections , production of kids , etc . is it going to be there, you have got the office space, retail space and the residential space related to the total picture related to people . Mr. Stevens stated that they realize that the information is not sufficient for the board to make these decisions at this time . It is clear that people from the public have questions , he was looking for an alternative to allow them to proceed with the earth work. We voluntarily put this on the table if we might find some hope of proceeding. Mr. Kett stated that the board would entertain a special meeting. Mr. Stevens suggested the meeting be a week to two weeks in order for the board and themselves to further study the information received. Mr. Steve Andrews, attorney,advised the board that he would not be able to attend a special meeting until after August 1, 1990 . Mr. Miller asked why couldn ' t they cut the number of cars being driven to school? Ms .Debbie Farmer responded to Hal Thompson ' s concerns . What you see before you in terms of a special use application indeed does not deal with a lot of the numbers issues . This entire building plan though grows out of more than a year long study that was essentially a very sophisticated long range planning committee, called Century Two that was chaired by City Council person, Lee Lonzo, including administrators , two school board members , teachers, some student leaders and a number of parents . They spent many hours dealing with those issues and coming up with recommendations to what type of facilities and what space ought CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - to be available in this building program. That has be'eh ddhe-riti. n s b'-:a is just not all available to the board at this time ' `Would' be` happy to get copies of their report to the board_ nembers if they so desire . rc) w, The petitioner requested this item to be tabled until a special meeting can be scheduled. Mrs . Badger moved to table this project for a special meeting until August 1st at 7 : 30 P.M. to discuss this project further by the Carmel/Clay School System. Mr. Miller seconded. Approved 3-2 . Mrs . Ila Badger amended her motion to table this project for a special meeting on August 8th, 1990 at 7 : 30 P.M. Mr. Miller seconded. Approved 5-0 . Mrs . Badger stated that they are currently in the process of studying the Comprehensive Plan . They have gone into detail traffic studies, is there any reason why this traffic study should not be turned over to the company that has been working with us on the Comprehensive Plan to review this . Also, request that their traffic person attend the meeting on August 8, 1990 to give the board some help and direction . They would be paid through the Board of Zoning Appeals budget . Mrs . Badger re- quested that Mr. Brandau contact Mr. John Myers at HNTB. Mrs . Badger also requested that Mr. Brandau submit this study to John Myers for his review. Mr. Andrews stated that was alright with him. Mr. Brandau requested that the board get a list of their concerns to him as soon as possible so he does not misguide the engineer in his analysis . Mr. Brandau requested the request in writing from Mrs . Badger as soon as possible . Mr. Jim Miller moved to adjourn this meeting. Mr. Klar seconded. Approved. The meeting adjourned at 10 : 42 P.M. Chairman Secretary