HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 04-28-08
L
L
L
City of Carmel
i
j
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 28, 2008
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday,
April 28, 2008, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Cannel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members in attendance were Kent Broach, Leo Dierckman, James Hawkins, Madeleine Torres and
Alan Potasnik alternate, thereby establishing a quorum. Christine Barton-Holmes and Mike Hollibaugh
represented the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2008 meeting as submitted. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 4-0, with Mr. Potasnik abstaining.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. Item 1d on the Hearing Officer agenda, Woodland-
Perkins Garage Addition, was moved by the Department to the full BZA Hearing. They were able to
complete notice in time for the Hearing Officer, but not 25 days for the full Board. They requested a
waiver of fourteen days. Item 1 h, Ingersoll Rand, on the full agenda needed a waiver of twelve days.
They were able to do notice correctly in terms of the date for the Hearing Officer, but noticed 6:00 pm.
Both of the other items on the Hearing Officer agenda, Item 2d, Kirkland Porch addition and 3-4d,
Carmel Elementary signage; have been tabled until May 19. On the full BZA Agenda, Items 9-10h
Prairie Trace Softball Complex, Items 12-14h Stout Shoes Buildings, and Item 26h, Mueller Property
South Underground Limestone have been tabled to the May 19, 2008 meeting. She read a letter into
the record requesting Item 11h, Docket No. 08030009 UV, Happily Ever After Flower Shop be
continued. The letter was from Brian Tuohy, representing the Charles P. Morgan and Roger Pope
families who own the largest property immediately adjacent to the south and west of the referenced
site.
Mr. Dierckman moved to waive the lA-day public notice for Item 27h, Woodland-Perkins Garage
Addition. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0.
Mr. Dierckman moved to waive the 12-day public notice for Item 1 h, Ingersoll Rand-signage. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0.
Mr. Dierckman felt because these two families were contiguous and most impacted by Docket No.
08030009 UV Happily Ever After Flower Shop, this item should be tabled or continued until next
month. .
Mr. Molitor suggested asking the Petitioner if they had any objection to this continuance before a
decision to table or continue was made.
E. Davis Coots, attomey representing Docket No. 08060009 UV, Happily Ever After Flower Shop,
stated they had published the Public Notice for this meeting. He did not know if others were in
Page 1 of 28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
attendance for this meeting. Mr. Coots would like to present the petition as opposed to coming back U. .
next month. They would like to move forward with the project. He felt in all probability the Board
would table the item either before or after the Public Hearing tonight, to give Mr. Tuohy an
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Morgan family.
Mr. Hawkins asked for a show of hands ofthose wanting to address that petition. Fifteen plus hands
were raised.
Mr. Molitor pointed out that Mr. Potasnik was present as an alternate. He would need to be available if
part of the item was heard at this meeting and then tabled or continued until the next meeting.
Otherwise the Petitioner would need to "do over" next month for Mrs. Plavchak.
Mr. Potasnik did not see any reason he could not attend next month.
Jo1m Moore, partner with Mr. Tuohy, stated the two families had owned the adjoining property for
over 100 years. Mr. Tuohy had contacted a number of the surrounding property owners in Brookshire
and others affected by this petition to let them know a continuance was being requested. He did not
feel anyone had an objection to a continuance, but they knew it was at the Board's discretion.
Mr. Hawkins proposed the petition be heard at this meeting with the possibility it would be continued
to the next meeting.
LJ
Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. He pointed out the special meetings the Board has set to discussion
the pending litigation and settlement on Tuesday, May 13 in Executive Session and the Special
meeting to hear Agenda Item 26h, Mueller Property South Underground Limestone Operation on
Thursday, June 12, 2008.
H. Public Hearing:
lh. Ingersoll Rand - Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08030034 V Section 25.07 Sign Chart C Address sign size requested larger than permitted
The site is located at ] 18] 9 Pennsylvania St. It is zoned B-2, Heavy commercial and office uses.
Filed by Kurt GoertemillerofGrubb and Ellis for Ingersoll Rand.
Present for the Petitioner: Kurt Goertemiller, Ingersoll Rand. The variance is for better visibility for
emergency services at the property. They are allowed three and one-half inch letters based on the
setback of the facility. They want to increase the size to twelve inches for the 11819 main address on
the front of the building. There are three buildings in the complex. They would like to designate each
of the buildings in the complex on tlie rear with twenty-four inch letters (A, B, C).
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
u
The Public Hearing was closed.
Page 2 of28
u
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. They are requesting twelve inch numbers on the
front and twenty-four inch letters on the rear of the buildings. They had originally requested twenty-
four inch signs all the way around. The Department had been working with the Petitioner and felt
because of the extensive setback and wooded parcel, the twelve inch numbers on the front and twenty-
four letters on the rear was a good compromise. The Department recommended positive consideration.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08030034 V Ingersoll Rand - Signage. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Potasnik and APPROVED 5-0.
2-3h. United States Tennis Association - Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08020006 V Section 25.07.01-04 (i) Sign located in street right of way
Docket No. 08020018 V Section 25.07.01-04 (]) Sign located off premise
The site is located at 1310 E. 96th St. and is not zoned - the sign would be located in the right of way.
Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans.
Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKiImey and Evans. Also present were Mark Saunders,
Executive Director USTA Midwest Section, Jim Maggard from Raymond James, one of the building
tenants, and Steve Granner, Land Use Planner with Bose McKinney and Evans. Jay Hacker, a member
of the USTA Foundation Board was also present. A PowerPoint presentation was used to show the
location of the parcel and the proposed signage. A common entrance is shared by UST A and Five
Seasons. Five Seasons originally owned this parcel and had constructed the entrance. The sign at the
entrance is oriented north to south. Most developments would have a sign oriented east to west so that
people traveling along 96th Street would be able to read the sign. The large undeveloped land between
the UST A building and the Manon Trail is owned by the Hamilton County Commissioners. They
acquired the land from Five Seasons for the possible relocation/diversion of96th Street under the
interstate to connect with 96th Street at Westfield Boulevard/Range Line Road. Subsequently the
Manon Trail has been developed with the trail, parking lot and restrooms. When Midwest Tennis was
looking to develop this property, they wanted to put tenants in the building to offset the cost of the
operation of this building and the Hall of Fame Museum within the building and to provide income to
the Foundation. There are two tenants in the building: Raymond James & Associates and First
Merchants Banle Both tenants have people who regularly come to the site off 96th Street. However,
unlike the Five Seasons patrons, these may be very infrequent. They may never have been in this area
and may use the building once or twice. In order to determine the location of a ground sign to assist
people, they needed to see what was available. The right-of-way and property lines were indicated. In
setting the sign five feet off the right-of-way, they are off the property owned by UST A A sign on the
UST A property would not be visible, particularly to the people coming from the west. They had
requested the right to encroach into the right-of-way of the undeveloped land from the Carmel Board
of Public Works & Safety. Under the temlS of the agreement, the City retains all of its rights to this
right-of-way. However, the sign could be erected at USTA's risk. If this right-of-way would be used in
the future for any purposes, the sign'would be removed and re-Iocated at no cost to the City. The 20-
year Thoroughfare Plan does not anticipate any type of street using the right-of-way. The sign would
be approximately 290 feet from the Manon Trail and he did not feel it would have any affect on the
trail. Pictures of the trail and sign location were shown. A rendering of the proposed sign was shown
with a brick base which matches the building and a limestone cap. The sign would be internally
illuminated. It is approximately six feet in height and identifies the three tenants in the building.
Traveling from east to west on 96th Street, the UST A sign age is not visible and there is no indication
Page 3 of28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
for the entrance to the building. The building has signage on 1-465. A lot ofthe customer traffic comes U-
from 1-465 on the west and travels east along 96th Street from Meridian Street. The site does not show
an entrance to the building. From 96th Street the UST A sign on the front of the building and the
entrance to the Five Seasons is visible. The signs at the entrance have "Five Seasons" and their
address. There is no indication this is also the entrance for UST A. Several photographs were shown. If
USTA were to put any identification on the Five Seasons sign, it would be another off-premise sign.
Therefore, they are seeking to put a sign to the east that will identify the entrance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The proposed sign would be both in the City's right-
of-way and off-premise. The large swath of right-of-way that was granted to the County and is now in
the City's jurisdiction is unique. The Engineering Department has indicated the petitioner would need
a variance and consent to encroach to place the sign in the right-of-way. If the right-of-way would ever
need improvements, the sign would need to be removed. This section of 96th Street would probably
need to be improved before the unique swath of right-of-way would need improvements. The
Engineering Department did indicate they would prefer to maintain ownership of the right-of-way
rather than vacating the land and transferring it back to the original owner. The Department has a
general concern with signs being located off-premises and within the right-of-way. Typically they
favor the situations when the building is not visible from the road. In this instance, the building itself is 0
clearly visible from both approaches of 96th Street and from 1-465. It has signage on the 1-465 fayade.
It is also architecturally distinct from the Five Seasons facility. The Department did not see a clear . _ .
practical difficulty in this instance. They have a concern with this off-premise sign. It would serve
mostly people approaching from the east. It would still not entirely address the concerns and issues
raised by the Petitioner to bring people to the site easily. The Department recommended negative
consideration of both variance requests.
Mr. Potasnik asked about the brick fayade and guard house at the entrance that were set-up for Five
Seasons when the parcel was developed. Does it have the address of the UST A?
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the address is for Five Seasons on the brick entry piers and also on the
building. TheUST A has their name on the west fa<;ade of their building.
Mr. Reis stated the Five Seasons address is the only address that appears at the entrance.
Mr. Hawkins stated the Department mentioned the sign is only going to capture traffic traveling from
the east to the west. He assumed most of the traffic was coming from the other direction, from 1-465
and Meridian Street.
Mr. Reis indicated the proposed sign on several photographs. They tried to put it as close as possible to
the 96th Street right-of-way, without getting into the right-of-way. The sign will be visible as D
approached from the west. Right now it is hard to locate the building without the address at the
street entrance. . .
Jim Maggard stated the address on the UST A building is not visible from 96th Street. The address
numeral "1310" faces due east toward the Monon Trail. The location was indicated on a photo. The
Page 4 of 28
u
u
L
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
"1310" is also on the door facing west. Many people do come from 1-465 and 96th Street. They are told
to turn in at the guard house and make an immediate right. People will drive by the guard house
coming from the west and also from Westfield Boulevard on the east. They thought there would be no
problem being located in the Five Seasons complex and the UST A building. But with the lack of
visibility of the" 131 0", "First Merchants" or "Raymond James" fi'om 96th Street, they are surprised
how many people have trouble fmding them. A sign would help. Coming to this meeting, the sign
along Range Line Road pointing toward City Hall parking was very helpful to him.
Mr. Potasnik asked if the problem seeing the numerals was their size.
Mr. Reis stated the problem is the numerals are located on the east fayade and are not visible when
approaching from the west. The USTA Midwest sign is visible from the west, but the 1310 is not
included. The entrance sign says "1300 Five Seasons", so people think it is the entrance for Five
Seasons only and continue down the street.
Mr. Potasnik asked if the problem was the not being able to identify the building by the street address
from 96th Street. In other words a fire truck could not see it.
Mark Saunders stated the numerals are not visible from 96th Street. He indicated the canopy above the
entrance door and the only way to see that is from the parking lot.
Mr. Dierckman asked how many signs they are permitted for this building and how are they utilizing
those signs.
Mr. Reis stated there are three signs permitted for the building. There are two on the 1-465 fayade and
one UST A Midwest on the 96th Street fayade.
Mr. Dierckman asked ifthe signs on the 1-465 fayade were used for advertising or could they be
moved to the front of the building.
Mr. Reis stated they could not be moved without a variance. The UST A Midwest is visible on the
building. The problem is when people approach they can see the building, but the entrance says "1300
Five Seasons". The sign is not oriented for the traffic. The proposed sign would indicate it was for the
USTA Midwest site as well.
Mr. Saunders stated in the original PUD they were granted three signs. The sign locations were the
north, west and south sides. They were not pennitted a sign on the east side of the building. The only
want to change the signs would be to move one sign to another location on the building. Even if they
moved Raymond James to south side of the building, it still leaves First Merchant with their sign not
being seen from 96th Street.
Mr. Dierckman asked about the total number of tenants. He remembered there were some restrictions
at the'time of the PUD relative to square footage to be utilized within the building. Are those being
adhered to? He remembered this property being a very awkward situation and a difficult parcel. To
him personally, he felt they needed to go to Five Seasons for some signage. He did not feel the off-
premise sign would solve the issue. Maybe "BOO and 1310" could be on the sign at the entrance. In
addition, they could come back and ask for a large address number above the UST A Midwest or on
one side of it. .
Page 5 of 28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mr. Reis stated there are three tenants.
Mr. Saunders confirmed the square footage restrictions are being strictly adhered to.
u
Mr. Hawkins agreed with Mr. Dierckman. He understood their need for signage, but it seemed most of
the traffic was coming from the west. By the time they would see the off-premise sign, they would be
past the entrance.
Mr. Reis did not think there was a perfect solution, but to allow this ground sign would certainly
improve the situation. If he approaches Five Seasons to negotiate something about the entrance sign,
he is back to an off-premise sign situation. The Department has indicated they do not want to support
off-premise signage. The only reason this is an off-premise sign is because this is a unique situation.
They have a slice ofland that is basically being reserved. But they believe that is the best location for
an off-premise sign. Five Seasons has no contractual obligation to allow additional signage. If they
change it, they are back to the same situation. They would need a variance for an off-premise sign and
an ADLS Amendment to change the Five Season sign.
Mr. Dierckman remembered when this building came through for approval. It was explained that these
tenants were going to help pay the rent because the USTA did not have the funds for all of this. It was
going to users that were of similar type, not totally different, unrelated businesses. Now this is not
becoming a tennis building, but just another office building. He still felt it could be solved with
additional building signage with the" 131 0" clearly posted at the top of the building. It is known as the
UST A building, so there is no need for the tenants' names to be on the building. The clear marking lJ
with the numeral is more important for life-safety reasons to help the fire department. They have .
permits for signage and he did not feel the off-premise sign was necessary.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 08020006 V and 08020018 V, Unites States Tennis
Association-Signage. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and both DENIED 1-4 with Mrs.
Torres casting the only positive vote.
4-5h. Northview Christian Life Church Expansion - Special Use Amendment and Variance
The applicant seeks the following special use amendment and variance approval:
Docket No. 08020026 SUA Section 21.03 Amendment of Special Use for church expansion
Docket No. 08020032 V Section 26.01.01 Height of building exceeds maximum permitted.
The site is located at 5535 East 13 1st Street and is zoned 8-1.
Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Northview Christian Life Church, Inc.
Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present were the Pastor, Steve
Poe, the Business Administrator, Rick Thompson, and Bill Harris and William Cooper, from the
Building Committee for Northview Christian Life Church. Ben Richards, the architect from Champlin
Haupt Architects, Greg Ilko, the civil engineer from Crossroad Engineers, and Steve Siroky, general
contractor from S&B Construction Company were in the audience. The church is situated on
approximately 80 acres. It is a long-standing church in the community that continues to grow in D
membership. They have reached out to the community and allow sledding on their hills; the use of
their softball fields and basketball courts; and their fields for cross country meets in a day and age
when many are concerned about premise liability and other legal issues. With the growing
membership, they desire to construct an addition to the worship sanctuary. An aerial of the property
Page 6 of 28
lJ
u
L
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
was shown. The site modifications would occur on the nortbern portion of the property. As part of the
site changes the church is proposing to move the main entrance further west on 13151 Street. The
church would like to utilize the eastern 131 sl Street curb cut to extend into tbe new parking lot on the
eastern side of the property. The proposal would extend tbe sanctuary further north. The current
ground sign is near the current main entrance. Tbey would like to place the ground sign further west
near the new main entrance. The proposed landscape plan was shown for the perimeter of the site and
the parking areas. They will also have some building lighting and parking lot lighting as part of the
modifications. The building elevations with artist renderings of the new portion were shown. The new
elevation plans were displayed. The style of architecture for the addition is a bit different from the
current building. This was done purposely to add some variety to the building, but the building will
still be consistent with the existing structures. Due to the height of the expansion and the projections of
the parapet wall in the expansions, a variance is needed for the height. Lighting and photometric details
were also provided in the packets. They will be complying with all the lighting requirements and will
not need any variances for lighting. These additions are needed to adequately serve their members. A
productive neighborhood meeting was held April 16 for the surrounding neighbors. To their
knowledge, they have no outstanding issues with the Engineering Department or the Urban Forester. It
is also their understanding these requests are supported by the Department of Community Services.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition.
Favorable:
Kevin Rider, 1473 Second Way, had been attending Northview for approximately nine years and been
a member for five or six years. In view of the effect Northview has had on the community and his
personal life, he felt the expansion would help them spread that even further.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The first approval is to amend the existing Special
Use to allow the expansion of the church. The second request is for a sanctuary 65 feet in height with
some elements proj ecting above tbat height, which exceeds the permitted 35 feet in S-I. The building
is set back from 131 st Street. The exi sting landscaping as well as the proposed landscaping will help to
buffer the site and reduce the overall impact. It is a large site and a large campus. The Department felt
the proposed construction would tie in well with the existing and would not have a negative visual
impact on the site or the surrounding area. The Department recommended positive consideration of
both variances.
Mrs. Torres asked the height of the highest current building.
Mr. Shinaver estimated the highest point of the church was sixty to sixty;;.five feet. These heights were
indicated on the elevations. According to the architects and based on the grade issues, if these
variances are approved, the main roof height of the new sanctuary would actually be eight feet six
inches below the height of the existing church. Because ofthe parapet element, it will be
approximately eight feet four inches above the height of the existing church. The variance would be for
approximately eight feet. Based on the setback from 131 sl Street, that difference should not be too
visible to the naked eye.
Mr. Broach moved to approved Docket Nos. 08020026 SUA and 08020032 V, Northview Christian
Life Church Expansion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Potasnik and both were APPROVED 5-0.rPage 7 of28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
6-8h. Shideler Dermatology - Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08020029 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Number of signs per tenant
Docket No. 08020035 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Sign not facing right of way
Docket No. 08020036 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Number of signs facing right of way
The site is located at 750 W. Carmel Dr. and is zoned M-3.
Filed by Amy Rottman of Sign-A-Rama.
Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present were Dr. Shideler,
Marlene Doney, Business Manager, and Amy Rottman of Sign-A-Rama. Dr. Shideler has been a
respected member of Carmel's medical community for a number of years. His practice has grown by
serving patients of all ales. An aerial of the location was shown. The offices have frontages on both
Carmel Drive and 12211 Street. Dr Shideler's practice has expanded into a large portion of this building
to serve his three distinct specialties: dermatology services, skin care services and skin research
services. Even though he is an individual tenant, he has three separate entrances, three separate waiting
rooms and three separate check-out desks to serve the three specialties offered. As a result of the
diverse practices, it is important to provide adequate notice for the three separate services provided.
The variances are to permit additional signage on the front elevation ofthe building visible from
Carmel Drive, a variance to permit a sign not facing a right-of-way and a variance to pennit an
additional sign not facing an adjacent right-of-way. Renderings ofthe proposed signs superimposed on
the building were shown. There is the primary Shideler sign and then three individual signs for each
distinct practice group. This rendering had no italics in the signage. The Department had requested
consistency in the signage; either all italics or all regular font. Another rendering was shown with
signage in all italics. The Doctor does not have a preference on the type offont. They did have a desire
to have the font ofthe Skin Care location italicized to pull it out a little more and the others in regular
font. They will seek the Board's guidance on that issue. Renderings of the individual signs with their
dimensions were shown. They are not seeking any variances in regard to the size of the signs, but for
number of signs. A photograph of the current hanging sign was shown. It faces the Carmel Drive
frontage. They are seeking permission to have that particular hanging sign relocated to the back of the
building. While there are entrances to the three individual businesses on the Carmel Drive side of the
building, there are also entrances for the demmtology group on the rear of the building. All the new
signs will be located on the elevation facing Carmel Drive, except for the one hanging sign. In talking
with Staff it was his understanding that iff the Doctor had separate leases whereby he created three
separate entities that occupied these spaces, he may be entitled to these three signs. But since he only
has one lease, he is considered one user and the variances are required.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
c
[J
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. If these were tlrree individual tenants, the signs
would be permitted. If the building was oriented differently and the retention pond was not present, the
signs would be facing the right-of-way. The main concern of the Department is the size of the
"Shideler" sign. It is a bit larger than some ofthe other signs in the area, but it is not large enough to u..-.
require a variance. The consistency in font has been addressed by the Petitioner. For ease of reading,
The Department prefers regular font types, but will leave that to the Board's discretion. The
Department recommended positive consideration of all three variance requests.
Page 8 008
L
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mr. Potasnik asked ifthere were three distinct entrances for the three practices. Are the signs
illuminated? He also asked about the hanging sign.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed it is a multi-tenant building with one tenant occupying three tenant
spaces. The signs are intemally illuminated. The single hanging sign is in the rear afthe building.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket Nos. 08020029 V, 08020035 V, and 08020036 V, Shideler
Dermatology signage.
Mr. Hawkins asked about the block or italic font preference as long as they were the same.
Mr. Dierckman did not have a preference and would leave it up to the second.
Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion and stated the font did need to match and would be left to the
discretion of the Petitioner. All variances were APPROVED 5-0.
91{1h. Prairie Trace Softball Complex TABLED UNTIL MAY 19
The appliount seeks the following speciall:lse and development standardc variance:
Docket Ne. 08020033 SU:\ Section 2l..03 Expansion of SdlOOI Hses
Docket No. IUW20034 V SedioB 25.7,02 5 Additional iHstitatioDIlI sign taller than permitted.
THe site is located at 11200 North River Road and is zoned S L
Filed b-y William Pa)lle of Fanning/Hewey "'\sGocio.tes, Inc. for Carmel Clay Schools.
11 h. Happily Ever After Flower Shop
The applicant seeks the following use variance approval:
Docket No. 08030009 UV Ap~endix A: Use Table . Retail uses in residential district
The site is located at 4611 East 116t Street and is zoned S llResidential
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler for Lisa & Stuart Lawrence, owners.
Present for the Petitioner: E. Davis Coots, Coots Henke & Wheeler. Also present were the owners,
Lisa and Stuart Lawrence, and Dennis Lockwood of Lockwood Design & Architects. This Use
Variance is for a flower business at the property. The request is personal to her and should she choose
to cease doing business, sell the business or change the business, the variance would expire. She would
be required to return to this Board or to seek a rezone ofthe property to change the use in the future.
To the north of the parcel is the Brookshire Golf Course and northeast is the Flowing Well Park Both
pieces are zoned P-l. To the immediate west are two residences; one occupied formerly occupied by
Mr. Ralph Morgan, who also owns the large parcel that extends down to 106th Street and indicated by
COlli1sel. To the east is a floodway area that belongs to the Sycamore Farm Subdivision and is utilized
as a common park area. An aerial of the parcel was shown indicating the vegetation; none of which
will change. The entrance is 200 plus feet south of the 116th Street intersection. The improvement will
be to increase and change the configuration of the driveway entrance to a parking area that will
accommodate up to six vehicles for purposes of the flower shop that is to be conducted within the
building. A zoning map of the area was shown. The Comprehensive Plan designates this entire area as
a residential zone. However, because of this intersection and the intensity of this intersection, the
Camp Plan acknowledges the possibility of light retail development in the area. They are not seeking
anything very retail oriented, other than the occasional sale of flowers to customers that would visit the
site. As indicated in the application, the primary business is special events, weddings, churches and
Page 9 of 28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
special parties. However, she does and will maintain an inventory for those who wish to stop in for
flowers. A site plan was shown indicating the change in the entry driveway to facilitate two-way traffic
and the additional area for parking. The building will remain at its site. They intend to strip the
building to the existing cedar and work with that or upgrade the exterior in an effort to improve the
appearance of the location. The landscape plan in the packet that had been submitted to TAC and Scott
Brewer, the Urban Forester, shows that the additions to landscaping are primarily intended to shield or
screen the parking area from public view along the public streets. The hours of operation of tbe facility
end at 5 :30 or 6:00 PM, so the landscaping is not needed to shield headlights from the streets, but
rather by the Urban Forester's request the parking area is screened because it is in the side yard. They
would expect to identify the location with two ground sings approximately twelve square feet in
dimension. The landscaping around the base of the identification signs meets the Ordinance
requirements; one would be on the 11 6th Street elevation and one toward the entryway on the Gray
Road elevation. A photograph of the existing building was shown. The reason they feel a Use Variance
is appropriate is that although this old house has been occupied as a residence in the past, it is now
fourteen feet from the right-of-way of 116th Street. They do not believe it is as desirable for a residence
as it would be for purposes of a light use retail flower shop. The Department Report indicates concern
about the establishment of a Use Variance on this tract and what its impact might be to similar pieces
of property located up and down 116th Street and the precedent-setting affect of granting this Use
Variance. They believed the consideration of this Use Variance was the purpose of the Board's
function to consider each item case-by-case to examine the circumstances on a piece ofproperty that
has changed by the widening of 1 16th Street. The other two pieces of property along 116th Street close
to the right-of-way are the old trading post that Steckley converted into a residence at Haverstick and
116th Street and a home with a two-car garage just west ofthe MacAlister's Deli at Pointe Parkway and
116th Street. The subdivisions along 116th Street are setback in such a way that they have not been
impacted by the widening of 116th Street. He felt their Findings of Fact justified the approval ofthe
Use Variance. An issue that has surfaced in conversations with the Counsel for the Morgan's is the
intensity of the flower shop use.
Lisa Lawrence, 9780 San Marco Pass, Carmel, owner. About six years ago she became interested in
the flower business, taking classes and working in several shops. She would like to pursue this for at
least the next ten years. She also has a daughter that would like to work with her in the business. The
current nature of her business is altar arrangements for three local churches and bridal consultations
and weddings. They have always loved this little yellow house. It does not have any direct neighbors
except the home next door. That gentleman has passed away and she did not know what Mr. Morgan
planned for the homes he owned next door. There is park land facing the other three sides. This yellow
house just sits out by itself. When they considered purchasing the property, they did speak briefly with
the residence services and they did not seem to think there would be a problem in pursuing this. So
they did buy the property with a goal of putting the flower shop there. She does not want to work long
hours or compete with the large flower shops. She wants to continue to do church service, teach a few
classes and do light retail. Any deliveries would leave by 10 AM and be cut off by noon. A little shop
like this could do ten to fifteen deliveries on a good day, fifty on Valentine's Day and eight on a
regular day. There would not be a lot of traffic coming in and out. The community would be welcome
and sue would like to do retail business. They were attracted to this unique property that was built in
1890. They would like to eventually put in cutting gardens and welcome the community to participate.
She did not plan to do wire services. She just wanted to serve the community.
Mr. Coots stated all the activities at the property will be interior. There will not be external storage of
product or a garden center. There will be plantings, but no storage.
Page 10 of28
D
~
D
u
L
L
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition.
Favorable:
Ferris Miller, 969 Ashton Place. He has known the Lawrences many years and performed their
wedding. They are very artistic. Mrs. Lawrence has done a tremendous job for the churches and
weddings. He felt it was a wonderful thing to have this type of people in the community and not having
something that would distain people. If they have to sell the property, no one knows what kind of
people would be there. It could be motorcycle gangs or drug addicts; they're all around in different
places. It's a nice old piece of property. The whole family is artistic. He felt it would be wonderful for
the community to accept them and embrace them.
Gene Doctor, 29 Lansdowne Lane. He has known the Lawrences many years. This property will either
be used by lack of use or it will be used for a purpose, such as the one proposed by the Lawrences.
They take care of their things and will be a good steward of the property.
SUZalme Baach, 12587 Sandstone Run in the Bayhill Subdivision, north of the park. She has always
wished this little yellow house on the comer had a purpose. She felt it would be fabulous for the
surrounding neighborhoods to be able to hop on a bike or walk over to frequent this little place for
flowers or other small retail items. She felt it would be great for the neighborhoods that surround it and
a lovely addition to the four comers.
Mr. Hawkins asked for a show of hands for the unfavorable comments. He stated it was important to
hear from everyone. He reminded them to state the point and try not to repeat points that had already
been made. Typically this is limited to 15 minutes. From the show of hands that will give each person
about one minute.
Remonstrance - Organized:
Tom Kendall, 11818 Gray Road, second house north of this property. He represented the Board of
Directors of the Brookshire Homeowners Association which represents 383 homes. They had
previously submitted a letter for the Board and the file. He felt the Lawrence's business would be a
real asset to the Carmel community. There are many places for this business and it does not have to be
at this particular location in order to succeed and be a benefit to the community. As a former member
of the City Council, he had the opportunity to work on the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan is to have Planners give an idea for residential and retail/commercial areas.
Speaking for himself there was never any intention for any property in this area to be used for anything
other than residential purposes. Refeh other members would concur. As previously mentioned, the
three other corners are park or park-like areas. They would like to keep the residential flavor of the
community and not have an introduction of commercial development within the neighborhood which
they feel would reduce the property values in the area. Before 1990, Gray Road was not straight at the
intersection of 116th Street. About 1990 the City Council decided to try to straighten the road. It is now
angled between the two old sections.ofGray Road. The ingress and egress of this property is about the
point where Gray Road turns to the northwest to connect with the other portion Gray Road. At that
point, 'northbound Gray Road fans out into three lanes, plus the wide southbound lanes coming around.
Anyone leaving the property, going any way other than south on Gray Road, especially during working
hours, might encounter quite a bit of resistance in traffic. Traffic does back up there quite a bit.
Regarding the front setback, the street encroached on this property when it was widened in the early
1990's. At the time, he was one of those against the widening of 116th Street. MallY were in favor of
making it five Janes at that time. Those opposed were concerned that widening the street would bring
Page 11 of28
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
the road so close to the homes and devalue them. It would eventually make residential properties into lJ
commercial properties. He felt this underscored the problem when roads are widened and promises
made to the citizens of this area who were very adamant about the widening of l16tb Street. They did
not want commercial development because of the widening of the road. These comments were over
and above the eleven items in the letter from the Homeowners Association.
Barry Chapman, 4824 Pendula Drive, Sycamore Farm Subdivision, due east and across Gray Road. He
does not represent the Homeowners Association, but he and his wife, Liz, canvassed the neighborhood
Saturday and Sunday. They have 65 homes with seven for sale and six unoccupied. Ofthe 59 occupied
homes, they obtained signatures representing 39 addresses. These represent 60 percent of the total
number of homes or 66 percent of the occupied homes. Of those people contacted, one declined to sign
and 97.5 percent of those contacted signed the petition protesting this Use Variance. The reasons listed
were an adverse effect on the value of their homes in a current residential area; negative effect on the
appearance of the area with lights, parking lot and signage; and open a gateway for other commercial
variances in this residential area which would further adversely affect the value oftheir homes. If this
is zoned commercial, then the precedent is there until it expires or goes away. It would adversely affect
traffic flow at the intersection. Their entrance is off Gray Road and any time between 4:00 and 5:00,
the road is extremely heavily traveled to the north. He presented a copy of the petition to the Board.
Ron Carter, representing the Carmel Redevelopment Commission as President. The Commission is the
adjacent property owner of Brookshire Golf Course. One of the reasons they had purchased Brookshire
Golf Course was there has been so much pressure on the golf course, especially the corner at 11 6th [Jr,.
Street and Gray Road. One potential buyer of the golf course just wanted the comer of l16th Street and
Gray Road for a pumper/convenience store. On the south side of 11 6th Street from Keystone Avenue
over to Oak Hill Mansion, there is no commercial. He did not look at Oak Hill Mansion in its
geographical area affecting the residential. It is park and residential in this area and it should stay
residential. As you have seen in the past, a Petitioner has already bought the property and it might be
appropriate for the Board to grant the variance. From his point of view that is absolutely no reason to
give a variance or any other type of Plan Commission approval. This is something that should have
been looked at as an option pending zoning or variance approval.
Ken McGinty, 4614 Aldersgate, President Brookshire Village Homeowners Association. On April 21
they sent a letter with five reasons they were opposing this variance. Since that time he had looked at
the Comprehensive Plan. As Counsel pointed out, it is a busy road. As the preface 011 page seven of the
Comp Plan indicates, the east Carmel district (one offom districts) "is unique compared with the other_
three districts because it typifies suburbia with curvy linear streets, dominantly single family
residential uses and a small number of employment or commercial developments. Aside from the 96th
Street area there are only two integrated commercial areas within this whole district east of Keystone;
Brookshire Village Shops and Hazel Dell Comer." Other references are included pointing out the
unique residential character of this area. There are available spaces to conduct this type of business in
both the Brookshire Village Shops and Hazel Dell Comer.
Remonstrance- Individual:
Joe Svec, 11426 Burlcwood, Sycamore Farm. He felt there would be increased traffic noise, noise from
the parking and increased air pollution. Signage would be relatively unsightly. It may be pretty, but it
is not nice in a residential area. There would be undue commercial traffic with delivery trucks and
frequent turnaround of delivery trucks. It would probably necessitate an unsightly trash container and
its related extremely noisy pick-up. Sycamore Farm residents invested a great anlOunt of money into
Page 12 of 28
D
L
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
their homes in a residential area. There is no other business operating within a mile of this area. The
vehicular traffic at 116th Street and Gray Road is already at a maximum. This is against the wishes of
Sycamore Farm residents and violates the trust that the citizens place in the hands of the Carmel City
government.
Matthew Gamble, 11416 Regency Lane, Sycamore Farm. It seemed to him that taking a northbound
trip out of this property, particularly at rush hour in the morning or in the evening, would necessitate a
southbound turn. The first neighborhood to make the obvious turnaround would be Sycamore Farm.
Speaking of the undesirability of the home, when he was looking to purchase a home, this one was
pointed out to him. It did not stay on the market very long. Ironically a friend had mentioned that was a
house he had also considered. He thought its proximity to 116lh Street did seem close, but it was its lie
on the land and the acreage that made it a desirable home. It is in disrepair at the time, but he has seen
repairs and lights on in the house. He felt it was a house that could be repaired and used as a home. It
does not necessitate use as a commercial property.
Jan Douglas, 4639 Aldersgate. She pointed out there are 16 vehicular lanes at that intersection in
addition to two bicycle lanes. So it is a very congested area. She felt the application was being
presented as a hardship because the Lawrences have already bought the property. Spot zoning by
variance is a very poor idea.
John Moore, attorney at 50 S. Meridian Street, Suite 700, Indianapolis, representing the Morgan family
interests, consisting of Judy and Roger Pope, as well as Chuck and Roxy Morgan. They own the
property west and south of the parcel to 106th Street. At one time the family did own this property as
well. It was the maternal grandfather that gave this property away and created this parcel. The Morgans
have been on the property for over 100 years through five generations. They are strongly opposed to
this variance request. A number of surrounding property owners have talked at length regarding the
Comprehensive Plan (a Comp Plan map was shown). All property in this area calls to be residential.
There is no commercial that is contemplated. This plan was adopted by the town. The Morgan family
owns the property adjacent to this site that was occupied by Ralph Morgan and also the next property
and all the property to the south. They have some concerns about retail/commercial use on this comer.
There is no commercial within a mile of this parcel in any direction. This site is on the adopted Camlel
bike plan and there is a bike path that runs along this site at this intersection. They have concerns about
the traffic that will be created. On Gray Road between 4:00 and 6:.00 PM, cars are often backed up
over a half mile south. This retail use seeks to use a full right-in and right-out access, right turn and left
turn that would conflict with the traffic that backs up along Gray Road. In addition, there will be retail
parking on this site. The Morgans have. concerns about what will happen at night. Who will be
watching the property at night and what will happen adjacent to them on that property after hours?
Signage adds to the area being looked at as a commercial area and is contrary to the Comprehensive
Plan. A Zoning Map was shown. He felt the Board was being asked to put a commercial zoning in the
middle of all the residential. There are vacant sites to the west that could support commercial uses.
This is inappropriate, does not fit and it is spot zoning to place this commercial/retail use at the comer
of 116th Street and Gray Road in residential zoning.
Doris Segar, 4842 Windrift Way, Windpointe Subdivision, northeast of the property. Mrs. Lawrence
assured a garden center would not happen. There is nothing to say that in a couple years an opportunity
may arise that would allow them to sell annuals and perennials around this time of year to supplement
their income. Someone had mentioned letting their children ride their bikes to this establishment. There
Page ]3 of28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
are no sidewalks and she would not allow her children to cross 116th Street and Gray Road. She drives
this consistently to and from work. It is backed up consistently on 116th Street and Gray Road.
Jemmie Wang, 4841 Windrift Way, Windpointe. He works near Meridian and Carmel Drive and drives
this route twice a day during rush hour. Often the eastbound traffic on 1 16th Streetis backed up to
Meridian and people turning eastbound from Meridian are stuck in the intersection. He had some
compassion when he heard 116th Street was encroaching on the house. But then he found out they
bought it recently, so the Lawrences bought it knowing the situation it was in.
Mike Horrocks, 4824 Greenspire Drive, Sycamore Farm. This introduces commercial use very close to
an elementary school. He can attest to the traffic patterns for the tumarounds. He has the third home in
Sycamore Farm and would see anyone who would need to turnaround. The minimal impact with the
occasional sale of flowers would be difficult for any business to survive on minimal sales. He would
put the crime potential with drug dealers and motorcycle gangs in the hands of the Carmel Police
Department. He did not feel they would want a commercial area with park land and a golf course on
the other comers.
Jay Kern, 11439 Regency Lane, Sycamore Farm. Although this is a personal variance request, he felt
that it was used as reasoning for adding improvements like parking spaces. Once those changes are
made, he felt it was hard to change the property back into residential. He felt that was setting the
precedent by making those types of improvements to the property.
Rebuttal:
Mr. Coots had taken notes on the remonstrance, although he did not have a copy ofMr. Kendall's
eleven-point letter. He could only reiterate that most of what was brought out about traffic and
congestion within the area, etc. assists in proving the point this site is no longer suitable as residential
versus the limited Use Variance they seek. This is personal to the Lawrences. Any improvements made
to it will go away if they cease using the property for the proposed flower shop. It will not become a
photography store, a CYS Pharmacy, or whatever by reason of the fact that this flower shop Use
Variance has been suggested. As to the spot zoning argument, the very reason the Board of Zoning
Appeals has the ability to grant variances is because there has been some change in the circumstances
met by the Finding of Fact requirement under the Ordinance that permits the Board of Zoning Appeals
to vary the use of a property within a certain zone classification. It is not a re-zone or spot zoning, it is
a variance from the S-l Zoning Classification that is presently not a Permitted Use or a Special Use.
The reason the Board of Zoning Appeals has exclusi ve jurisdiction over the granting of variances is for
circumstances like this. They meet the criteria. As to the value of homes, he had confidence in Mrs.
Lawrence's statements and those who know her better than him that it would be an improvement to the
area, not a detriment. Her opportunity to use this property for the limited use business would be an
addition to the overall area, not a detriment.
The Public Hearing was closed.
u
c
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. Thi s is the first of what will probably be many U
petitions that the Board will see for 116th Street. The corridor is beginning to see a great deal of
pressure all the way over to Meridian Street. This is probably the easternmost request for commercial
usage along I 16lli Street. This requested use would be a fairly low inteusity use witb regards to traffic
and the appearance of the house being maintained and so forth. While the Board is not technically a
precedent-setting body, there is a concern about the example being set of additional commercial uses
Page 140[28
L
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
growing in the corridor and the possibility for additional conversions, whether permitted or otherwise,
appearing in the corridor. The Comprehensive Plan does recommend residential uses at tbe site. It
recognizes that circumstances do change and some low intensity uses such as a home-based occupation
which only take a small percentage of the house are considered compatible with residences. In this
instance, the house would maintain the appearance of a house, but would be used entirely as a
commercial use. By way of comparison, the Board recently reviewed a Use Variance request for I 46th
Street. It was the third request at that site. The first two times it was turned down because it was the
first such request in that area. Over time other commercial uses to the east and north of the site were
brought in, so it was approved the third time. In this instance this is the first such request in this area.
The immediate surrounding uses are predominantly open space and residential and this use would be
considered a pretty low intensity use. Taking a look at the community as a whole and the corridor as a
whole, the Department recommended negative consideration.
Mr. Molitor pointed out the application states the requested Use Variance will be personal to the
applicant. In his opinion the Board does not have jurisdiction to grant relief of that nature. Use
Variances must run with the land and cannot be granted purely to the Petitioner. That constitutes
unlawful restraint and alienation on the real estate. He suggested when they called for a vote, that tbey
not include that in the consideration.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08030009 UV, Happily Ever After Flower Shop. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Potasnik and DENIED 0-5.
The Board took a five minute recess.
12 141:8. Stout Skoes B1lildiBgS TABLED UNTIL MAY 19
The applieant seeks the following development standards '/arianoc approvals:
Docket No. 08030lH 0 V Seetion 20C.OS.IH(}'&)(3) Retail1lses ia exeess of SO%
Docket No. 08030011 V Section 20C.OS.04(B)(2)(a) Height under 28'/One occupiable floor
Docket No. 08039012 V SeetloD 211C.OS.IH (B)(2) Setbaek af less tllan HP.
The site is located at 13100 13155 Old Meridian Street and is zoned Old MeridianlMixed Use '.vithin the Old
Meridian Distriot
Filed by Michael C. Cook of Wooden & McLaughlin LLP for Old Meridian & Main Street Properties, LLC.
ISh. City Center at Penn - Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08030013 V Section 25;07.02-10 Additional wall sign
The site is located at 1320 City Center Drive and is zoned B3/Business ~ Office.
Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for Panattoni Development Company, LLC.
Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis" Bose McKinney & Evans. Also present was Chris Alexander of
Panattoni Development. An aerial photo of the building under construction in 2007 was shown. The
overall signage plan for building #2 was shown. Currently there is one major tenant in the building.
Their sign is on the angled fayade looking to the southwest. The existing directory sign and
identification sign for the area were indicated on the plan. They are proposing a variance to allow a
second 105 square feet wall identification sign to be on the large south fa9ade facing City Center
Drive. A computer rendering by Fred Simmons, the architect, was shown to give a perspective view of
the building. Sign locations were indicated. If the variance is granted, the signage would go through an
Page 15 of28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
ADLS process to approve the design of the sign. This is a three-story office building with
approximately 138,500 square feet. This will be attractive for larger users for which signage is
critically important. Another perspective ofthe building at ground level was shown. The building is
large enough that the signs are not close to each other and are aesthetically compatible to the building
and other buildings in the area. A schematic drawing was shown indicating the sign areas on the south
elevation. This fayade is over 340 feet from east to west and the signs are proportionate to that large
expanse. Another schematic was shown adding in the perspective tenant signs on the building. A
schematic of the west elevation was also shown. All the signs will be a maximum of 105 square feet.
[
Members ofthe public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. Because the fac;:ade along City Center Drive is
angled and because of the length of the building, the Department felt in this instance having an
additional sign facing the same right-of-way was an appropriate request. It would not be out of keeping
with the other buildings and signs installed along the Meridian Street, City Center and Penn Corridors.
The closest thing to residential is the Renaissance Hotel and there would be a minimal visual impact.
The Department recommended positive consideration.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 08030013 V, City Center at Penn-signage. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5~O.
[J.li.
16-17h. Monon & Main, Units 3A, 3D, & 4F.
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket Nos. 0803001~16 V Section 15.26 ofPUD Z-462~04 non-residential uses on 2nd & 3rd floors
Docket Nos. 0803002~28 V Section 2.13.B ofPUD Z-462~04 2~car garage reqnirement
The sites are located northeast of Third Ave NW and Main St., and are zoned PUDlPlalll1ed Unit Development.
Filed by Mr. and Mrs. Ardalan for Saari Gallery.
Present for the Petitioner: Soori Ardalan, owner. She was asking for the garage and second and third
floors to be used for retail since there is not enough first floor area. She has contacted various
businesses and shown them the three units. The big drawback is the first floor area. These properties
are located on Main Street, west of the Monon Trail. There are nineteen units. Her present gallery is at
Third and Monon. Last year when she asked for her variance, everyone was concerned with foot traffic
and parking shortage. Unfortunately, at the present time she does not have any traffic because
everybody thinks they are still under construction or there isn't any interest. She wanted the variances
to be able to lease the three additional locations. She was looking for a design studio, jewelry shop,
bridal shop and a cafe. She had looked into the parking situation. At the present time, 90 percent of the
time she is able to park in front of her gallery, with three or four spots still open. The City is going to
build new parking lots and there will be underground parking at the Indiana Design Center. A floor
plan ofthe units was shown. Ouly the eleven by sixteen first floor of the units is presently commercial.
That is very small and she would like to add the garage space. In her gallery, she boxed off the area
inside the garage door, creating a storage area between the garage door and the new wall for trash and D
loading and unloading deliveries. She would like the second and third floors also to he used for retail. . .
Page 16 of28
L
L
u
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The Board has seen several variance requests in the
past for units at Monon and Main that front onto Main Street for commercial uses in addition to the
space that was permitted in the floor plan to be commercial. The vase majority of those have been for
design offices or consulting offices with a very minimal traffic flow. For the most part, they have used
their garages for employee parking. That helps minimize any impact on parking by the proposed uses
the applicant has listed. The uses requested by the applicant would be a design studio, bridal shop or
jewelry shop. The Board has the discretion to limit those uses in their entirety to all three units or to
assign them to a unit. The uses that are requested would not have a tremendous impact on parking. A
couple of the uses could be considered retail, but fairly minimal. Especially a bridal shop would
typically have appointments and not necessarily impulse traffic. The Calmel Redevelopment
Commission also intends to build a parking garage some time in the near future. That would alleviate
some of the parking congestion in Old Town. Currently parking is not too much of a concern. As Old
Town continues to develop and as more people learn what is available, parking will become a concern.
The Department recommended positive consideration of all the requests. The Petitioner had addressed
the handling of deliveries alId trash collection with the modified garage.
Mrs. Torres asked ifthey would be stating hours of operation or was that within the Board's
jurisdiction. What had the other businesses done?
Mrs. Barton-Holmes believed it was within the Board's jurisdiction to limit the hours. The other
businesses had stated their hours and most closed at late afternoon or early evening hours. These are
the most retail-oriented use requests at the site. She did not believe the hours had been limited, but it
waS a possibility.
Mr. Potasnik asked if these were supposed to be a conunercial use with residential use above.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed the original PUD delineated a space within the first floor for a live-
work use, mostly offices or light retail uses for the units facing on Main Street. All the units behind
were entirely residential. For the most part that is how it has been developed. Although there are
variances granted for some of the units facing Main Street to be used entirely for retail or office uses,
the intent was to create a mixed use project. With the market and the purchasers' desires, several
of the units fronting Main Street have been used more for office uses than for office and residential
uses combined.
Mr. Hawkins asked iJthe Petitioner had already purchased these units. Were they an investment she
intended to lease to a third party?
Mrs. Ardalan answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Hawkins stated he believed in the past these units had all be owner-occupied units. Now they were
looking at investment units for other businesses. He felt in the past the Board had a little more detail on
the use, how the unit would be improved and a better understanding of what each unit would do
and represent.
Page 17 of28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated in the past the units have come through one by one. The majority of the D
units are owner-occupied, but she could be wrong about a few of them. Previously they have presented
their business plan and the number of employees. She believed the Petitioner was requesting these uses
because there were interested sub-leasers who would like to move into these properties, but wanted to .
see ifthey would be able to utilize the entire unit before they committed to moving in.
Mr. Hawkins was not opposed to what the Petitioner was trying to do, but did not condone the way it
had come about. This would be general approval for uses on anyone ofthe three units without a good
understanding what is proposed or how the business is to be conducted. At this point, he was
uncomfortable with it.
Mrs. Ardalan has shown the units to a design studio, a jewelry shop and a bridal shop. They do not
want to make any commitment unless the retail variance is completed. The first floor is very small to
do anything. The hours of operations for her gallery are usually I :00 to 4:30 or 5:00 PM. Everyone in
that area close at 5 :00 PM. The main parking is for people using the Monon Trail. At the present time
there are only four businesses. Three others are used for residences. All the businesses are not owner-
occupied. She is only looking for high-end types of businesses that will go with the area. It would
make it easier to be able to tell potentialleasers they can use all of it for their business. For a rental, no
one is interested in a small business on the first floor and living space upstairs. Even with the garage
blocked, there is plenty of parking on the street ahd the other parking the City will have later. There is
also parking in the back.
Mr. Hawkins did not feel he had enough information for a positive vote at this time. He would rather
see her come in with the perspective tenants that propose a specific concept, so they can look at the
units on an individual basis.
lJ
Mrs. Ardalan asked ifshe could get a general variance contingent to the Board's approval. This way
she could present to perspective leasers that she had initiated the steps but would have to continue with
the specific business details.
Mr. Molitor suggested the Board could continue these petitions for a couple of months to see if there is
a more developed proposal for the type of business, hours of operation and the traffic generated, etc.
This was a little like a blank check.
Mr. Potasnik asked what the Petitioner would do if one or two of the suggested uses fell through.
Mrs. Ardalan would like the initial part of the variance. Then she could tell the client she has a
variance approval, depending on the type of business. At least there would be the promise to them, if
their business was appropriate, they could get the variance.
Mr. Potasnik felt the Board would end up marketing the property for her. He did not feel that was the
role of this Board. He did not feel comfortable spelling out a bunch of uses that would or would not
be allowed.
D
Mrs. Torres tried to clarify. Would the Board be more comfortable ifthe Petitioner would list the
business for each unit? Such as a design studio with hours listed and number of employees.
Page 18 of28
L
L
L
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mr. Potasnik stated if they were specific in the variance and one of the types fell through, such as a
design studio, then she would be looking for another design studio or another use for the unit. He was
not comfortable with turning something into all retail that had been represented to the surrounding
properties as being part residential.
Mr. Dierckman stated the history was the City had encouraged the live/work units. Unfortunately, the
work portion of the live/work unit is not large enough to make it a sufficient or practical business use.
The original concept was a good one, but virtually everything that faces Main Street has come through
the BZA for variances. There is not enough square footage to justify the cost associated with this and
most people want additional display space. Ifwe give the approval for a bridal shop, it will have
dresses on the first floor. The City has tried to be unique in this Main Street area. The Ardalans have
been very entrepreneurial. They are trying to encourage other businesses so that people will walk by
their business. He knew a jewelry shop, but did not know a design studio. A design shop would be a
little open. Could she do without the variance for a design studio? He felt it needed a definition. He
thought they should encourage entrepreneurial efforts.
Mrs. Ardalan stated a design studio would have fabrics, etc. During the Art Gallery Walk on
Valentine's Night, she invited a famous bridal shop for one of the units. They had good input from
people. The City had horse-drawn carriages to bring people to the various shops. Unfortunately many
people think all the businesses stop by the Monon Trail. The people think the units west of the Monon
are residential. The horse carriage stopped in front of her gallery, which helped bring people her way.
She also directed them to go to the bridal shop in the other unit. She had in mind businesses that would
operate with appointments, not lots of people going in and out. She bought the units in November and
has been advertising. Everyone who looks at them wants more space than just the first floor. Even
using the garage area as marc retail space, all deliveries and trash would be in the back of the building.
Mr. Hawkins agreed with Mr. Potasnik that giving a variety of uses would serve as a marketing tool
rather than a hardship. At this time, no one is prepared to go in with a concept and an idea, with hours
and business aspects. He was uncomfortable with giving an approval and then hoping she could find
tenants. If these fall through, she would have to come back for another variance. He felt a tenant
should be ready to go with a proposal before it is approved. He appreciated her efforts in her gallery.
He was not against granting a variance, but did not feel this was the way to do it.
Mrs. Ardalan stated if she had to wait until she had the perspective tenant, it would take another two
months for the variance to be approved.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes suggested a compromise. It seemed the bridal shop was more fully-fonned than
the other ideas. One possibility might be to approve a bridal shop for one of the specific units and
imposing limited hours on that bridal shop and tabling the other two sites until something is more fully
formed. That way it would stay on the docket/agenda and she would be able to come back to the Board
when she had a business plan for thqse units. That would save some time.
Mrs. Torres agreed with Mr. Dierckman. She applauded the efforts and quality. The three uses (design
studio, jewelry shop and bridal shop) would limit the uses of the units. She felt that was clear. The
quality would be top-notch because of the lease that would be required.
Mr. Dierckman stated they knew what the exteriors would look like. It would just be the windows that
would be at risk.
Page 19 of28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mr. Broach agreed with Mr. Potasnik and Mr. Hawkins. There had been more specificity in the past. C
He pointed out that if these variances were approved and someone wanted to open an ice cream shop,
she would need to come to the Board for another variance. She would be limited to only these uses. If .
the uses are attached to certain units, that could be another limitation. He felt tabling would be more
appropriate.
Mrs. Ardalan asked what would happen if someone wanted an ice cream shop or a cafe?
Mr. Molitor stated the Board is not in an advisory position as to what it might or might not approve
with a future petition. He did not recommend they address it.
Mr. Hawkins confirmed the Board needed to stick with the petition that was presented. They could not
give any advice. From the material presented, it looked like it also included art studios and professional
offices as well. He did not believe that was in the Finding of Fact, but was part of the petition.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the Department Report referenced design studio, bridal shop or jewelry
shop because those were the primary items discussed with the Petitioner in pre-filing meetings. Those
seemed to be the three most fully-formed uses. The Department had requested narrowing the uses, so
that it was not a blank slate.
Mr. Hawkins asked Mrs. Ardalan if she was comfortable assigning the bridal shop to one ofthe units
and tabling the other two. He did not want to prevent her plan. He agreed with what she was trying to
accomplish, but did not feel this was the method to establish it.
LJ
Mrs. Ardalan asked if it was possible to ask for the professional offices and art galleries as was on the
application.
Mr. Dierckman stated they had learned earlier in this meeting that uses do not go with the individual;
they go with the use. He did not see the level of risk. They all know a bridal shop or jewelry shop use.
She would not lease to anything that would be detrimental to her own business.
Mrs. Torres shared with the Petitioner it looked like she would run the risk of being denied by the
Board at this meeting. Then the petition could not be presented again for six months. If they considered
the bridal shop and tabled the others, she could come back to the Board in one month.
Mrs. Ardalan thanked Mrs. Torres for sharing her thoughts. If she chose a unit for the bridal shop, it
would be 4F because that was the one used during the Art Walk.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the petitions could be split so that unit 4F would be for a bridal shop use
and the other two units, 3A and 3D, could be tabled until such time as Mrs. Ardalan had likely tenants
and uses. The petitions could be modified as needed at that time. Ifthey are tabled long enough, there
would be re-noticing.
Mr. Dierckman stated if all three were approved, Mrs. Ardalan could come back at any time. The six D
months does not hold for an approved use. An approved use can be modified at any time. '_
Mr. Molitor felt the problem was the open-ended request. These are Developmental Standards
Variances which are really not identifying uses. They are saying that she can have any of the uses
Page 20 of 28
L
L
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
allowed in the POO throughout all three floors of these three units. Hthey are separated out as
suggested by Staff, then that would be the only use allowed for that particular unit. Unless they came
back and requested a change. The use runs with the land. If a bridal shop was approved, that would be
the only use permitted in that particular unit. Staff could recommend which docket numbers to use for
the bridal shop. It appeared the Board was being asked for an advisory opinion for what they might
approve in the future.
Mr. Potasnik asked if the Staffwanted to make recommendations to the Board and then have the Board
market it for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated that when a petition is received it is specific to the nature of the request,
number of employees, hours, etc. As a Department; they can only advise the Petitioners. They cannot
tell a Petitioner not to file or refuse an application. In this instance, the Department supports the idea of
these units being used for more than just a mixture of office and residential. They have supported units
being converted to office, spa or gallery uses in the past. They prefer to see more specific requests, but
at the same time if this is limited to "use to unit", the use is forever tied to that particular unit. It is
difficult for the Department and the Board to try to assign uses or expand the development standards
for permitted uses within the site without more detail about those uses. They want the Petitioner to be
able to expand their uses and the District overall, but at the same time they want the growth to be
within reasonable limits. They do not really want to put the Board in the position of marketing for the
Petitioner or provide the ability for marketing for the Petitioner. But they do not want to constrain the
Petitioner either.
Mr. Hawkins asked Mrs. Ardalan if she wanted to modify her petition. The Board could not advise her
further. He agreed with Mrs. Torres and would hate to see this pushed to the point it is declined and
then she would not be allowed to apply for six months.
Mr. Ardalan, co~owner. He appreciated the efforts of the Board and requested all three items be tabled.
Mr. Molitor stated if it is tabled tonight, they could come back next month. The length of tabling
would be at the Board's discretion.
Mrs. Ardalan asked if there was a time period.
Mr. Hawkins stated that at some point the Board could not continue to table it indefinitely. After that
point, she could re-apply. If the Board votes and it is declined, then she must wait six months to re-
apply.
Mrs. Ardalan agreed to table the petitions.
Mr. Molitor recommended the Board move to table with the proviso the Staff must be advised within
the n~xt three months whether they wish to bring it back before the Board. Beyond that, they would
need to request permission from the Board to put it on the agenda again which would require
additional notice.
Mrs. Ardalan asked if it would be possible to extend to six months because of the market and the
economy.
Page 21 of28
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mr. Hawkins moved to table Docket Nos. 08030014-16 V and 08030026-28 V, Monon & Main,
Units 3A, 3D & 4F.
u
Mrs. Barton-Hohnes stated that to place an item on the agenda they would normally have one month
lead time or at least three weeks,
The motion was seconded by Mr, Dierckrnan and APPROVED 5-0.
ISh. Wilson Drive Porch
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance
approval for a garage addition:
Docket No. 08030018 V Chapter 8.04.03.A Reduction in required front yard setback
The site is located at 1 Wilson Drive and is zoned R2IResidential.
Filed by James Young, o\vner.
Present for the Petitioner: James Young, owner. He would like to bump the existing porch out four
feet. His existing porch is outside the building setback line. A site plan was shown. A rendering of the
front porch was shown. He will be adding a gabled roof.
Members ofthe public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
o
Mrs, Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report, This house had received variance approval in
February to expand the garage to the south. This additional variance for the porch addition is to relieve
the appearance of "boxiness" that would occur with the garage addition. It would also legally establish
a two-foot encroachment into the front yard setback and permit the porch extension by an additional
four feet into the front yard setback. Because it is a comer lot, there are two front yards and two side
yards. The sighting of the house on the lot and the size of the lot make it hard to expand the house
without a variance. The Department recommended positive consideration of the variance.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 08030018 V, Wilson Drive Porch. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-1, with Mr. Potasnik casting the negative vote.
19-25h. Circle KlShell
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 08030019 V Section 23F.05.01B Build-to line greater than 10'
Docket No. 08030020 V Section 23F.07.02 Height under 26'
Docket No. 08030021 V Section 23F.07.01 One occupiable floor
DocketNo. 08030022 V Section'23F.08.01 Floor Area Ratio minimum 0.5
Docket No. 08030023 V Section 23F.06.02 Frontage minimum 700/h
Docket No. 08030024 V Section 23F.15.02 Parking located in front of building U
Docket No. 08030025 V Section 23F.l1.03 Landscaping & screening
The site is located at 1230 South Rangeline Road and is zoned B3lBusiness, within the Carmel Drive/Rangeline
Road Overlay. . --
Filed by Donald Fisher of Insight Engineering for Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC.
Page 22 of28
u
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Present for the Petitioner: Donald Fisher, Insight Engineering. They are proposing to remodel and
expand the existing Circle KlShell. Staff has requested these items be tabled so they can go to the
Special Studies committee and work out the details of what they are trying to do.
Mr. Molitor suggested Mr. Hawkins ask ifmembers of the public were in the audience to speak in
favor or opposition to the petition.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition.
Mr. Carter of the Cannel Redevelopment Commission was present, but was not opposed to the items
being tabled until the next meeting.
This item was tabled to the May 19, 2008 meeting.
2Gb.. Mueller Property SaHth Uedcrgraued Limest6ee OJlCrati9B TABLED UNTIL MAY 19
The applicant seeks the follmving special use approyul:
Docl(et No. 08939932 SU Appendix A: Use Table UedcrgroHBd minilllg: io residcotial district
The 96 acre site is located at 5345 East 106tA Street and is zoned Sl/Residential.
Filed by H. Wa)'l1e Phears of Ph ears and Moldoyan for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
27h. Woodland - Perkins Garage Addition MOVED FROM HEARING OFFICER
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08030033 V Section 7.04.03.A Encroaching into 35'-front yard setback
The site is located at 201 Woodland Drive and is zoned Rl/Single Family Residential
Filed by Ross & Buffy Perkins, .owners.
Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present were Ross and Buffy
Perkins, owners. They purchased this home in June 2007. An aerial photograph of the area was shown.
They purchased the home with the intent to make a significant investment to remodel the interior and
the exterior of the home in order to create a dream home for the family. A closer aerial of the subject
property was shown. After hiring an architect in August 2007, they inquired if variances would be
needed. They were initially advised that no variances were required. Prior to commencing
construction, they did find out that a variance would be needed for a potential encroachment into the
front yard setback. This is a corner lot with a unique shape. Based on the footprint ofthe existing home
and the configuration on the lot, they are limited in the manner in which they can construct a home
addition that will accommodate the reasonable needs for their family. The proposed addition will
provide additional living space and a new garage area. Upon completion of the improvements, it would
add considerable value to their home. A rendering of the site plan was shown with the addition
highlighted. Their current garage and driveway are located off Cardinal Drive. Because this is a comer
lot, it is considered a front yard setback. Photographs of the home and surrounding area were shown,
with the location of the garage addition indicated. After the proposal was filed and discussed witb the
Staff, changes in the location were made, moving the proposed addition furtber north. There are
significant trees and tree cover on the property, especially along the southern property line. lfthe front
ofthe home that faces out toward Woodland Lane was the only front yard on this corner parcel, the
western yard could be considered a side yard. Then the encroachment requirement would go down to
ten feet. With two front yards, it impacts where they can encroach. There is a 35-foot front yard
Page 23 of 28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
setback requirement. Because this portion ofthe lot is curved, the area for encroachment would be U.,
about 21 feet at the most and 9 feet at the least. Due to the classification of a comer lot and the western
yard as a front yard, the unique shape of the parcel and the existing building footprint, the lot does
present a hardship. Absence an approval of the variance request, they would be denied an opportunity
to provide a home addition for this garage on this portion of the house. Based on how the house
currently sits and how the internal portions ofthe house currently function, they do not believe they
can put a garage addition and significantly remodel the interior on any other side of the home, because
of the setbacks and getting the driveway to the garage. The only other option would be to demolish the
current home and construct a new one with a front-load garage. They have made sure the design of the
remodel would be consistent with the existing home, using the same building materials and
architectural requirements. They have made some concessions from their original plans by scaling it
back and pushing the garage further north. It was their understanding the Staff would support a
positive consideration ofthis particular proposal. The Staff Report points out the materials would
match the existing home, the garage addition would be only one story like the rest of the home, and
with the existing tree cover around the site, the overall visual impact of the addition would be minimal.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition.
Remonstrance:
Ann O'Hara, attorney with Church Church Hittle & Antrim, representing Hans Wuelfing, 21 Cardinal
Lane, south of the parcel. They did not feel the variance being requested was a practical difficulty for
the Perkins. From their application, they are requesting to build a 4-car garage and a new car court. 0
They appreciate the interest in developing the property; however, they did not feel it was an undue
hardship or practical difficulty. Their Findings of Fact stated this proposed addition would not have _.
any adverse affect to the neighborhood or the adjacent properties.
Hans Wuelfing displayed pictures of the properties in the immediate area. His property is directly
south of the Perkins property. Cardinal Lane is a rather unique area. It is a dead end street. A picture of
the three driveways on Cardinal Lane was shown. His driveway is the center one. His home sets a little
lower than the other two which set up on a knoll. A picture of his home was shown, looking north
toward the Perkins' property. He has two issues. The Perkins' home was built in 1957 and there was an
addition built in 1982. The addition in 1982 created a drainage problem for his property with the drain
spouts flowing toward his property. The current driveway also slopes toward his property. The edge of
the driveway has deteriorated because of the excessive flow of water off the Perkins house. A picture
indicating the difference in the site elevations was shown. There is about two and one-half feet
difference, with the slope going down toward his property. Prior to the building of the 1982 addition,
there was enough ground coverage to absorb the runoff of water on the original house. The Perkins
property is considerably higher than his property. Another picture showed the damage that had been
caused by the shifting of the underground subsoil against the edge ofthe fence. It also showed the
cracking that he felt was caused by water that has shifted against his fence and caused an encroachment
onto his property line. The next picture showed the view from his property toward the Perkins
property. A new view with the proposed garage was shown. In his opinion it is not appealing to have
the area blocked. He felt the shaping ofthe roof and the additional downspouts would compound his Ur'. ."
water problems. Because the elevation slopes down toward his property, it will create additional
problems. He will lose the openness of his view toward the Perkins property. He felt when the Board
considered the needs of Mr. and Mrs. Perkins; it was based upon preferences rather than needs or
hardships. He thought it was questionable as to whether they could or could not build in other parts of
their lot. It may not be their first preference, but the northern part ofthe lot has better drainage which
Page 24 of 28
u
~
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
would resolve his problem. It would also not obstruct any views and in the wintertime the garage
would deflect the snow which would then accumulate in his driveway. Building on the front of their lot
may not be desirable, but would be more practical to accommodate his concerns and needs for
drainage problems. He was concerned with drainage and the negative affect the obstruction could have
on the resale value of his home because of the tight enclosure within a restricted area.
Robert Heinlein, 151 Woodland Lane, across the street/west from the Perkins residence. Hardship,
reasonable needs and twenty-one feet encroachment were difficult for him. He hoped the Board
understood the lay of the land, the drainage and the neighborhood ambience from Mr. Wuelfing's
pictures. He had submitted a letter to the Board on April 20th asking that this variance not be approved.
In 2004, he had new addition plans for his house which were similar to Mr. Perkins' plans. The thirty-
five feet setback rule was made very clear. That was thirty-five feet from the right-of-way, which was
considered to be forty feet wide. Literally that was fifty-five feet from the center of the street. His
building permit was held up at that time because there was some question about the location of his
house on the propeliy. An inspector came to his lot and measured to make sure his two additions did
not encroach on the fifty-five feet from the center of the road. Have the rules changed since 2004? This
proposed addition is too close to the street. It will stick out forty-two feet further than any house on
Cardinal Lane. No house in the Woodland Subdivision is that close to the street. There are alternative
ways to add a master bedroom and bath. This house already has a three-car garage. To him, this is not
the only practical way to add reasonable living space. He felt they needed to find a plan that fits the
Zoning Code before asking for a variance that is going to block views and flood yards. Drainage was
his biggest contention. This would be a 1470 square feet garage slab, downspouts, parking tarmac and
another 3500 plus square feet that would flood his front yard which is across the street and downhill.
He felt whenever it rained the water would run from the tarmac into his yard. His family has lived at
this property since 1955 and he knew the drainage problems and water runoff characteristics this
proposal will cause. He shared a photograph he had taken that day at 2:30 PM during a light drizzle. It
showed water between his house and the Perkins' house that had run offthe Perkins property into his
front yard. This was not a heavy rain and the proposed huge tarmac and garage slab were not installed.
This proposal would negatively impact his property and cause serious flooding problems. The
neighbors were not against Mr. Perkins improving his property, but it should not be done to the
detriment of his neighbors.
Tim Kavanaugh, 20 Cardinal Lane, across the street from the Perkins. They bought their home in 2005
and remodeled extensively. They are thrilled to be in their location. Cardinal Lane has only four
houses. He had measured the street before coming to the meeting. It measured fourteen and one-half
feet wide. There is not room for two cars. He indicated Cardinal Lane on the site plan. He felt Cardinal
Lane would be dwarfed by the Perkins' driveway. When he goes down his street, he will see their
driveway and think he will need to drive down to the servant's quarters. He thought everyone should
have the right to build their dream home. But when their dream home creates a nightmare for their
neighbors, it is the Board's responsibility to deny it. He felt bad about mentioning that the Perkins have
owned the property for about one year and the yard is a mess. It has been a mess since day one. The
trees have not been trimmed and the leaves have not been raked. Maybe they are trying to get rid of
the grass and leaves with the additions. So far they have not made a good impression on anyone in
the neighborhood.
Rebuttal:
:Mr. Shinaver stated that currently there is a garage that serves the home. Based on the proposed
remodel, the current garage would become living space. Since the current garage would be living
Page 25 of 28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
space, they propose a garage addition. The original proposal for the garage addition was closer to the
southern property line. It was designed to accommodate three cars to pull in with another bay in the
back that could accommodate a fourth vehicle if needed. Based on the way the request has been
modified and pushing it back further to the north, this would only accommodate a three~car garage. In
regards to the concerns about drainage, the Perkins purchased the property in 2007. Mr. Perkins had a
general conversation with Mr. Wuelfing, the neighbor to the south, regarding the proposal. There was
some discussion about the drainage and the fence line. Mr. Perkins does not admit or concede that
whoever owned the property prior to them created the drainage problem. The comment he wanted to
make to his neighbor was that if there was something the Perkins' contractor could possibly do during
the course of the remodel to be of some assistance as it relates to drainage; Mr. Perkins would have the
contractor look into that. This is a one~story addition to the existing one-story home. It is a unique site
and area. A significant tree cover does exist on the southern property line. Based on the way the house
sits on the lot a little more to the east, he was sure the neighbors believe they will be able to see the
addition and it will obstruct their view. At the same time, the Perkins are convinced that it will not be
that much of an obstruction visually. The view back to the south toward the golf course is not being
affected for the southern property owners. With the current footprint of the house, he did not believe it
was feasible to remodel any other way. Going off the Cardinal Lane roadway seems to be the most
viable option, but in order to do that they will have an encroachment issue. They are trying to
accommodate the site. If they tried to put the garage addition on the north side on the front of the house
along Woodland, it would probably not work and they would tear the house down and build a two-
story home. They have spent time with their architect and contractor trying to design the best site. It is
disappointing the neighbors are not accepting of this proposal.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. This proposed addition would be the second such
addition to this house; the first was constmcted on the south side of the house, expanding the garage,
and was approved in 1982. When the Department considers requests, they look at the overall impact
and how similar the addition is in terms of setback to other additions that have been done in the area
and the overall context. The site is within an older neighborhood. Several houses have had additions or
other modifications. In some cases, houses have been tom down and rebuilt. The Department
considered the context of the neighborhood, the style of architecture and the building materials in the
area. Although the encroachment would be greater than the majority of other setbacks in the area the
overall design and materials being used for the house were context sensitive. It was the Department's
feeling that it did mitigate to a great extent the decreased setback along the site. With regards to
Woodland Drive, it is a very narrow road. However, it was platted out at forty feet and less than twenty
feet were ever paved. It is a forty-foot right-of-way and the encroachment would be measured from the
edge of the property line. That does help increase the visual buffer, give or take ten feet, of additional
right-of-way that was never paved on either side of the street. That also helps mitigate some ofthe
impact. The Department recommended positive consideration.
u
o
Mr. Broach did drive on Cardinal Lane yesterday. It is very pretty and quiet. It stmck him as he
approached Mr. Wuelfmg's property on Cardinal Lane that the elevation changed. To him the drainage U' .
issue was significant. Unless some evidence is provided that it will be mitigated, he was not in favor of
the variance.
Mr. Hawkins asked if the drainage had been reviewed as part of the application.
Page 26 of 28
u
u
u
Cam1el Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
Mrs. Barton-Holmes said the clrainage would be reviewed at the permit level with regard to pervious
surface and drainage. The Department would recommend to the Petitioner that some kind of pervious
pavement be used on part of the driveway and part of the parking area. That would help to offset the
additional impervious surface and help to mitigate the drainage issue.
Mr. Shinaver stated the driveway would be constructed of pervious pavement materials. They would
not be issued building permits if they did not satisfy any concerns related to drainage.
Mr. Potasnik asked to see Mr. Wuelting's picture of his view after the garage addition.
Mr. Wuelting felt the picture represented his view after the addition. He admitted it was not the same
architecture or to scale, but any openness and view to Cardinal Lane would be gone. If this were the
back of his house, the view/scenic aspect would not necessarily be a major issue.
Mr. Potasnik felt this representation showed clearly that Mr. Wuelting's property would be affected in
an adverse way, not withstanding the surface drainage issue.
Mr. Shinaver stated the garage addition overlay in the picture was covering all the trees in the buffer.
They will be preserving as many of those trees as possible and felt they would provide screening.
Mr. Dierckman asked for details about the garage.
Mr. Shinaver stated it would be a three-car garage with three separate bays. He indicated the garage on
the site plan. The closest point to the property line will be tifteen feet. The original proposal showed
the garage addition in line with the existing garage, making one flat plane. However, the plans have
been revised, pushing the garage about ten feet further north. The portion of the current driveway that
would no longer be needed would be pulled up and planted in grass and other landscaping to provide
screening. That is the portion Mr. Wuelting would view. A picture was shown of the southeast comer
of the Perkins parcel that adjoins Mr. Wuelfing.
Mr. Perkins, 9921 Estep Drive. They were going to try to keep the architecture basically the same. The
colors would change and a new roof would be installed. Essentially the inside will be gutted down to
the studs and walls would be moved. The exterior would keep the same basic footprint with the
addition ofthe garage extension. Elevations would be a little different with a California contemporary
look. They would use a stacked stone vertical siding. The brick would be painted as well.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes suggested a couple of conditions for the Board and Petitioner to consider if this
should be approved. A drainage plan should be drawn up for review by the Department of Engineering.
A landscape plan with a focus on the southern property line should be drawn up for review by the
Urban Forester.
Mr. Potasnik felt the drainage plan should be reviewed and submitted for Mr. Wuelfmg's information.
He feft uncomfortable in negotiating the petition after it has been submitted and a Public Hearing has
been opened and closed. It should be approved or denied as submitted.
Mr. Hawkins felt they should talk with the neighbors and get landscape and drainage plans in place. He
did not see any great hardship at this point. He understood the remonstrators' concerns with drainage.
Page 27 of 28
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2008
He thought it was great the Perkins were trying to add value to the neighborhood, but everybody needs
to be comfortable with the project.
Mr. Dierckman agreed. He would like to see how the back of the garage would look. There is ail
opportunity for potential buffering and he would like to understand the drainage. He would like to see
the Peti.tioner table the variance and come back with final plans.
Mr. Shinaver stated they agreed to table the variance and come back next month with a drainage plan
and treatment of the southern property line.
Mrs. Torres felt there were some positive things that could occur with the drainage by taking up the
asphalt and installing pervious.
I. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
J. New Business
There was no New Business. '
K. Adjournment
Mr. Dierckman moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 PM.
(
S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals- 2008/20080428.rtf
Page 28 of28
u
o
u