Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 02-24-03 Department Report CarrneVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 2 of 25 o J. Public HeariUl:~: 1-13j. CarmeYClay Schools~ CarmelHigh School (SUA-194-02; V-195-02 through V~206-02) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to construct a 173,OOO-square-foot Freshman Center addition to the existing high school. Petitioner also seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V-195-02 925.07.01-2 12-square-foot traffic directional sign A V-I 96-02 925.07.01-2 5-square-foot traffic directional sign B V-197-02 @25.07.01-2 6-square-foot traffic directional sign C V-19B-02 ~25.07.01-2 19.5-square-foot traffic directional sign D V-199-02 S25.07.0l-2 four-foot (4') traffic directional sign D V-200-02 S25.07.02-5(b)(i) eight (8) institutional signs V-20 1-02 925.07 .02-5(b )(ii) two (2) changeable copy signs V-202-02 S25.Q7.02-5(c)(i) 29.25-square-foot institutional wall sign V-203-02 S25.07.02-5(c)(i) 24.5-square-foot Institutional wall sign V-204-02 ~25.07.02-5(c)(ii) 24-square-foot changeable copy sign V-205-02 S25.07.02-5(d) 6' 2" institutional ground sign V-206-02 S8.04.01 57-foot building height The site is located at 520 East Main Street. The site is zoned R-2/Residence. 925.07.01-02 Defmitions. TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL SIGN. Sign directing traffic movement onto and/or within a premise, not exceeding three (3) square feet in sign area for anyone (1) sign; and shall not be higher than three (3) feet above ground level. Standard traffic directional signs, such as STOP and YIELD signs, shall comply with the "Uniform Manual For Traffic Control Devices." 925.07.02-05 Institutional Uses. a) SIGN CLASSIFICATION: Wall sign or ground sign. b) NUMBER & TYPE: i) One (1) institutional sign and ii) One (1) sign with changeable copy. c) MAXIM1.Jl\f SIGN AREA: i) Institutional sign: Thirty (30) square feet; ii) Changeable copy sign: Sixteen (16) square feet. d) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF GROUND SIGN: Five (5) feet. e) LOCATION: No sign shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the street light-of-way in residential zones. No sign shall be located closer than five (5) feet to the street right-of-way in business and manufacturing zones. The sign shall not interfere with the vision clearance. f) DESIGN: Must be compatible \\lith the architectural design of the sttucture which the sign identifies. g) COPY: As per definitions of institutional sign and changeable copy. h) ILLUMINATION: Permitted. Page 2 \) ,DepaJtment Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 3 of 25 i) . LA.NTISCAPING: Ground Signs must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least equal to the total Sign Area. D REQOIR:ED APPROVALS: All permanent signs requITing a permit that are established in the R-5, B-4, B-7, B-3, and M-3 zones or the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone require Commission approvaL k) SIGN PERMIT: Required. 1) FEES: Not required. ~8.00 R-2/Residence District. ~8.04 Height and Area Requirements. (See Chapter 26 for additional regulations.) ~8.04.01 Maximum height Thirty-five (35) feet. (See also Section 26.01.01) S26.0 1 Additional Height Requirements. S26.01.01 In the residential districts limiting height to twenty-five (25) feet, a dwelling may be increased in height to thirty-five (35) feet provided the required side and rear yards are increased an additional foot for each foot such structure exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height. The Department recommends favorable consideration of Docket No. SUA-194-02 with the following Conditions: 1. That the petitioner shall vacate the lots and rights-of~way within the Carmelwood Subdivision plat that are proposed to become part ofthe project site; 2. That the petitioner shall combine all Tax Parcels that are part of the project site into a single Tax Parcel under a single, continuous boundary description; 3. That the right-of-way for the Sylvan Lane! Audubon Drive connection shall be dedicated and accepted by the Cannel Board of Public Works & Safety and a recorded copy of said dedication shall be filed with the Division of Planning & Zoning prior to an Improvement Location Permit being issued for this project; 4. That the emergency access easement between Sylvan Lane and the Second Street Northeast extension drive shall be recorded and a copy filed with the Division of Plamling & Zoning, the Carmel/Clay Fire Department and the Carmel Police Department prior to an Improvement Location Permit being issued for this proj ect; 5. That all TACissues be resolved satisfactorily. The signage being requested is consistent with the signs previously approved for the Carmel High School facilities. Sign Permits will be required. The BoaTd remedied all other sign issues on this site on,November 26,2001, per Docket Nos, V-liS-Ol through V-160-01. The Department recommends favorable consideration of Docket Nos. V -195-02 throug-h V-205-02 forsigna~e. The Department recommends favorable consideration of the request (Docket No. V -206- 02) for a 57-foot tall principal structure. The section onhe addition that will rise to this height is set back from the facade ofthe building, effectively screened by perspective. Page 3 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 4 of 25 D Item 1-13j. exhibit A Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Technical Advisory Committee December 18, 2002 Carmel/Clay Schools. Carmel High School (Special Use, DSV) The applicant seeks to construct a building addition and new parking areas at the Carmel High School Campus. 'Filed by Allen Cradler of Fanning/Howey Associates for Cannel Clay Schools. Allen Cradler, Jeff Bolinger, Chuck Tyler, and Ron Farrand gave an overview. . The freshman center consists of a large three-story addition, one single story, and ~ music addition on the eastside. To facilitate the freshman center addition, the school purchased six properties to allow parking to be replaced, to allow reconfiguration of the drive, and to allow the circulation. The various neighborhood meetings revealed an overall concern of traffic going into the neighborhood. We tried to solve that by once the properties were purchased, we saw an opportUnity to disconnect the internal drives from the high school to that neighborhood. We will reconnect Sylvan and Audubon from the 4th A venue and 2nd Street intersection. This would maintain the emergency access on Sylvan and provide another way to serve the people on Audubon. We replaced and added some 25 parking spaces when 132 that were lost. One other piece that shows up is the. explanation of the walkway that students use to come from the north parking area. We wanted to get them out of the road that is now closed in the morning and afternoon. This walkway will allow-that road to the north to be opened up. It will allow some bus traffic to be ~hift~d, come from the north, mid drop off at the natatorium entrance. They are' increasing some buses so this is .the maximum. We will try to take some traffic off the existing parking lot. There will be the potential to drop students off at the front door to the freshman center to try to alleviate the cUrrent arrangement. We still have to maintain the drop off and allow parents to come in. and queue up within the drop off, return this way, or head to the north. The remaining area will be buffering and landscaping. There will bea detention to take care of nmoff. A natural detention and drainage flow now exists across the property. A picture of the building is now shown. We are using brick to match the latest addition of the building and incorporating precast concrete to tie the buildings together. Some elements are different in design to signify'that this is the Freshman Center. The signage for this building will identify this as a place for the 9th grade students. The 50' is the mechanical mezzanine and is set back from the edge. We will put the parking lot as a point of reference on the drawing to eliminate the expanse of driveway. The peak of the sloped roof is slightly shorter than the mechanical wall. We also brought some overlaid Items from a question at the last meeting; The red outlines are the purchased properties. The dark green are existing trees that have been surveyed. The pink areas are existing trees that we will loose b<lsed on this layout. The island trees will be taken off the property to a nursery. We will try to transplant some of the trees; .We will check with Scott before doing anything because ofthe shock to the trees. If everything remains on schedu.le; we will break ground in April. We had a meeting this week with Skillman to get OUI: hands on how this will proceed. Some things could begin such as removing houses, connecting roads so we don't have public access, and working on utilities. The projected completion is 2005. Ron Farrand, we will need the PaJking areas for staging (islands and trees will be considered). Allen, the demolition will be the first item of business. Jon, it appears there is a house that remains on the two north lots. Could the house remain on the lots? Is the school corporation going to putthe property back up.for sale? This could be used as a buffer. Ron, we do not want to be landlords. We wantthe buffer in terms of the property. Jon, my questi()n is if you put it back up for sale with a deed restriction, it appears a better buffer than: if the house goes away. This is not a recommendation, just a thought about the property. In your discussion with the BZA, you might want to explore that idea more. For example, you could leave the home on the two lots, put them back up for sale with the restrictions that the existing buffering be maintained, etc. I realize it is a complex issue. Ron, we have considered this. Ifwe have the opportunity to buy, we wouldn't want to turn around and sell it. Our feeling is we have it for a buffer and as a green space then there is no potential conflict. Page 4 \l -, Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 5 of25 Allen, we do maintain a sidewalk along that road. We also maintain a pedestrian access for the neighborhood. We will bring a photo reduced in size for the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The one other piece of the walk has nothing major that will impact it. The green space that slopes off this drive and access along the east side will remain. We will provide a handicap' accessible ramp. At the soccer field there will be a ticket building. Some of the paving will be r~placed. The west side paving will be repaired and a new gate for emergency vehicles will be added. It currently is a turn style and ticket area to the football field. Laurence, has any thought been given to What the ultimate size of the scho.ol might be? You are saying that this floor plan has a design that should'serve at this capacity. Ron, this is according to the numbers which includes the anticipated gro\\1:h and all other factors. We have no guarantees that the numbers won't change. John South, the erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan does not satisfy the minimum requirement and intent for Rule 5. Deficiencies are noted on the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted. Erosion and sediment control plans need to be submitted prior to demolition work. Chuck Tyler, when the previous project was planned Cannel Clay was at a certain ievel and that has accelerated dramatically. This remaining build out is more defined. As this develops over time, the ability to predict the ultimate capacity of buildings is a little better. The superintendent has indicated that iefor some reason there is further expansion that will be the time to look at other solutions slich as alternative schools or magnet schools. Laurence, it is highly probable and very possible that we will not see an addition like this again? That will be Oile of the issues you will face when we go to the board. The buffer issues, at Clay Junior High are not as great as they are here. In terms of timing, are you planning on bringing Clay back to the January BZA meeting? Ron, do we proceed to the Plan Commission? Laurence, the Plan Commission issue of plat vacation is to get them focused on plat vaCation. This should be a blank sheet of paper. As far as the Plan Connnission, it could mn in parallel to the Special Use approval. Ultimately they both need to be fmalized. My concern with the BZA is, (knowing you have been working with the neighbors) if they are still hung up and you roll this out the same night (keeping in mind there are two different projects) their minds are going to fall in together. Ron, does that have to be done before we can proceed to the Subdivision Committee and then to the full Plan Commission? We could delay the rniddleschool. Chuck Tyler, the difficulty here is, from a schedule standpoint, the students are already in the system. The need for this expansion in a timely fashion is very real. Flexibility is more with Clay than with the schedule of the Freshman Center. Jim Blanchard, have you contacted an environmental inspector to verity that the houses do not have asbestos? Petitioner confmns that Phase One has been done on all the houses. Five houses will be tom town. Ron, depending on the public auction of the Taylor/Christy home there might be six homes tOI11 down. If someone buys it, the new owner could have it moved. Jim has a demolition permit requirement. Will students need to pass tlrrough the new addition at any time during the construction? For your construction trailers for temporary use, I have a form for you to complete. I also have information and an application for you referring to the presubmittal meeting required before building permits can be issued. Allen, other routes for shldent movement have been checked with Gary. Gary met with Jeff and Allen last week and all issues have been resolved except one. You are showing the emergency access TOad going back to Sylvan and Audubon Drive will be closed off early in the project. We wiII need that access open. Be sure you don't park construction trailers i~ that area. Dick Hill has not completed the department comments letter. The new segment will be dedicated. Allen, the vacation afright-of-way was completed the last time we were here through the City Council and BPW. Page 5 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 6 of25 (7 Jon, you should put together a separate set that addresses the sequence. That might also be effective in addressing the questions and comments. Laurence, we would also like to have the legal in hand by the time you get to BZA. The Skillman Corporation is in charge of construction. Jon would like to schedule a meeting before January 7th to talk about some of the issues that were discussed as part of the plat vacation. We want to be sme we can effectively address all the questions. I would suggest you engage the services of a traffic consultant. I am not advocating that you do an operations analysis or a traffic study per se. They could look at everything and prepare a rendering that says here is the layout and how it will affect the neighborhood. I want to give the Plan Cornmissionan aclequate response to any questions that might come up. To have a professional traffic engineer take a look at it and make some recommendations might have a greater impact on the PC especially after the questions from last night. Oneofthe most important things to recognize is the streets are less than what we require today as far as pavement widths and right-of-way widths. Chuck Tyler, I don't thi.iJ.k we can do that at this time and make it meaningful. Laurence, before permits can be drawn on this, all the little parcels need to be consolidated. You already have a boundary description for the overall property; That minus the right-of-way dedication should be included. Your rendering goes a long way in shawing haw it'sgaing to be seen from the ground. You should also include this in your packets to the board. The sign variance applications need to be more specific, We also. need to know if it will be illuminated. I especially need the width of the sign befare I can issue a Docket Number. Friday. Allen, the intent is not to illuminate the sign. Laurence, Paul Cripe is the cansultant for the school and he submitted the sign variance proposals for this. These numbers will be tagged to those numbers. ill the areas where you are expanding, there were several entrance identification signs that are being relocated. The fire department would also like to know where the entrances would be moving. They have a scheme of the overall b:uilding showing them where each is located. You can get a copy of that information from the fire department. We would like a' list af where signs wiil be relocated or eliminated. Dates to remember: January 2nd is the notice deadline and the meeting is on January 27th. As a fmal note, any issues you can resolve or any opportunity you have to work with the PC, I would encourage you to do. so. If you get to BZA and two af the members are comfortable with what is going on, it is more thai1likely that the other three will also. be comfortable. Page 6 -" ~ ,Department Report CarmeL/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 7 of 25 Item 1-13j. exhibit B Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Plan Commission December 17, 2002 8h. Docket No. 165-02 PV; CarmefHigh School Campus (Plat Vaclltion) The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision in order to modify the Cannel High School Campus. The site is zoned R-2 (Residential). Filed by Allen J. Cradler, AIA of Fanning/Howey Associates for Calmel Clay Schools. Alan Cradler, architect with FanninglHowey Associates appeared before the Commission representing Carinel Clay Schools. The school is requesting a partial Plat Vacation for lots, 3, 4, 8, 17, and 18 in the Carmelwood Subdivision along with the property at 420 Second Street. These six properties have been purchased by the School Corporation and the plat vacation will allow these properties to become part of the overall high school campus. As a part of the project and process, the School "rill submit a vacation request of right-of-way for Sylvan Lane and Audubon Drive. Once the approval process is complete, the new property line will follow the boundary of the recently purchased properties. The additional properties will provide space to maintain separation from the adjacent residential properties. The properties will also replace parking removed by the location of the proposed addition, allow the internal roads on the high school to be reconfigured and provide a means to disconnect drives that currently serve the high school from the adjacent neighborhood. Another step in the process would be a request to dedicate public right-of-way and construct a portion of new public road to re-connect Sylvan Lane and Audubon Drive, thereby disconnecting the intemal circulation from the high school with the adjacent neighborhood. Several public meetings have been held with the residents in the adjacent neighborhood and one of the major concerns was the traffic flow. A small section will be maintained to allow emergency vehicle access onto the high school property from 4th A venue as well as serve the residential area from the south, the north and the west. The vacation of the plat will allow the expansion of the Carmel High School Campus in order to accommodate the growing school age population. The proposed Freshman Center wilikeep all of the students in grades 9 through 12 on the high school campus at one location. The details of the project (layouts, landscaping and buffers) v.rill be presented to the Board of ZOning Appeals potentially in January. Members of the public were invited to speak in support of the petition; the following appeared. Remonstrance/Support: Tom Weigel, 12-year resident at 132 Sylvan Lane, west and north of the High School, supports the high school expansion and necessary plat vacation. Several benefits with the propos.al, mostimportant of which is disconnecting Audubon Drive from 2nd Street NE resolves safety issue; site plan as presented preserves seclusion of properties on Sylvan Lane; agrees with landscape buffer; emergency vehicle access to Sylvan Drive. The only negative is the extended connection to Main Street. Remonstrance/Opposition: Marshall Andish, 120 Sylvan Lane since 1989. High School was renovated in early 90's and was granted some concession by the High School at that time, although some were not carried out, including buffering. Current proposal impacts his property again, although school proposal could be re-designed for less impact. The school has chosen not to purchase his home, and his home will become a buffer for the school and the neighborhood. Sarah Simpson Taylor, 420 Second Street NE, feels as if she has let her neighbdrhood down wit.h this proposal. Ms. Taylor oViIled and lived in. the Averill Christy house built in 1928, home to the noted architect from Carmel. Ms. Taylor sold her home to the school and is in the process of moving to New York, otherwise she would still be in residence. The school campus does need to be enhanced and agreed that notice could have been more timely. The Christy home should not be tom,down! Ms. Taylor has personally found 4 persons who would like to purchase and move the home at their expense, but the school has purchased the home and there are no answers from the school to date. David Day, counsel for the school, said the house must be put before the public for auction, etc., etc. Ms. Page 7 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 8 of 25 () Taylor is leaving the area the end of January and the property will be vacant by the end of February. The School Corporation is ignoring the situation. Sandx:a Andish, 120 Sylvan Lane, Carmel, the closest to the road the school is proposing. The road will come through the Taylor's heavily-wooded lot, and on the opposite side of the street will be a parking lot for the staff consisting of 125 spaces. Carmelwood is one of Carmel's oldest neighborhoods and should be preserved. Construction will be In her back yard. The school will h<:tve a tremendous economic impact on them, and their home will be the buffer between the school and their neighborhood. Mrs. Andish requested at least 100 additional feet of green space behind their lot and the lot to the east, OR the school could just purchase their p:roperty. Bryan Borlick, 145 Audubon Drive, requests a larger buffer/tree area. It is most upsetting that o'ne of Carmel's oldest neighborhoods and the old Christy home and old trees will be destroyed for the sake' of a parking lot. Mr. Borlick said the school has been meeting in secret for two years and he was just noticed. The proposed tr~t; buffer will be new plantings and will take many, many years before the trees are of sufficient. height to replace what will be destroyed. Some of the estabHshed trees should be allowed to remain. Mike Reeding, 119 Audubon Drive, inunediately north of the new school property line, said the scboolhas addressed traffic concerns and some others. Meetings have been held, sometimes not with the best notice. The trees area concern, type offencing at property lines, buffer, water runoff a~d drainage. Note: The public hearing will remain open on this item. The BZA will review standards for the site. Mr. Cradler responded that a lot of the issues are details that haven't yet been reviewed and these will be addressed at the Technical Advisory Committee. The petitioner has done an exlsting tree survey and has made adjustments in the proposed plan. The School will continue to have meetings with the Department and dialogue with the neighbors as well. Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz. There is a significant importance here and that is the distinct roles of the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals in reviewing the Special Use AmendInent. The item specifically before the Plan Commission is the vacation of the identified lots and the accommodation of the new roadway to provide access to the remaining lots. It is recommended that the Plan Commission consider the comments regarding these issues and the public'is encouraged to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the correct body that will review the standards as a part of the Special Use Approval. The public should not have the impression that the Plan Commission is reviewing the site design as a part of Plan Commission approval, because the review is exclusively for the vacation of several lots. While the Plan Commission might offer recommendations to the BZA, the design issue should be left to theBZA for discussion. The Department is recomm~nding favorable consideration of the plat vacation specifically. Pat Rice spoke as the Plan Commission appointment to the BZA At this point, to approve the plat vac.,tion would be to let the horse out of the barn before the BZA has heard this. The question is, "What is morally right about purchasing a few homes and causing mental, emotional, and physic?-] hardship on those left and to destroy part of the heritage and the wooded area?" Remember the outrage over what Kroger Co. did to 'the vwoded area orf of Rangeline? Ms. Rice was outraged at the apparent non-consideration for not only some of Carmel's senior citizens, but to the community as a whole. Wayne Wilson commented that there should be traffic repotts or research that has been done to support the access and traffic flow if we are going to be dumping traffic on those neighborhoods to the west. Leo Dierckmanspoke in agreement with comments made by Pat Rice. Paul Spranger said he had served on the School Task Force and it was a public process. Paul Spranger encouraged the schoolto do it right and not just sandwich in one more addition to the high school. Ifit takes more acreage to do this right, then the school should step up and purchase houses appropriately. The high school does need to make the freshman center work and they have tried to do it with minimalland~maybe even to the detriment in terms of safety of the road. The architect's presentation this evening was woefully short of what is necessary for the City of Carmel and this should be addressed more appropriately. The school is a big issue as well as the property around it. The school has built one of the largest facilitles in the nation on a very small plat of land and we suffer the traffic and safety issues that stem from that. Docket No. 165-02 PV, Carmel High School Campus Plat Vacation, was referred to the Subdivision Committee for further review on January 7, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Page 8 .Department Report Camlel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24,2003 Page 9 of25 Item 1.13j. exhibit C Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Subdivision Committee January 7, 2003 4. Docket No. 165-02 PV; Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation) The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmel Wood Subdivision in order to modifY the Carmel High School Campus. The site is zoned R-2 (Residential). Filed by Allen 1. Cradler, AlA cifFaruiinglHowey Associates for Cmmel Clay Schools. Present for Petitioner: Chuck: Taylor of :PanninglHowey Associates; Mark Hartman and Dr. Underwood, Carmel Clay Schools; Roger McMichael, School Administration. Pedestrians and vehicles can be moved along the corridor at the same time by controlling the intersection and remove the conflict points and provide access for cars' in another direction. The proposal is a good, workable system. The biggest point, though, is separating the traffic between the school use and neighborhood use so there is no through traffic. Mark Hartman appeared on behalf of the school aIld explained that the community had been canvassed and four plans with two or three options were submitted. Plans were to be finalized by the 65-member committee and the Superintendent and a recomme.ndation given to the School Board. That process started in 2001 ending in early 2002. The process was open to the public, well-publicized, there were 5 meetings, and the final analysis came down to the need.to build a freshman center on Carmel High School proper, somewhere. Also, the recommendation was to build another middle school and determine its location. Property owners' were invited to attend the meetings and offer pubiic comment. Dr. Underwood appeared before the Committee also on behalf of the school. rhe big concern was the educational programs for the students. Initially, there was the thought that having a freshman center with separation from the rest of the school was preferable. Also, having the freshman center close to the High School had some merit and provided for an easier transition from middle school to high school. Roger McMichael, Assistant Superintendent, said the school was in the process of advertising the Averill home for sale. There were some right-of-way issues that were not addressed and a nurnberof'issues that the plat vacation will allow th.e school to clarify, consolidate the property and allow them to move forward. Jon Dobosiewicz said that based ona number of comments delivered at public hearing in December, the Department met with the applicant and suggested that they produce for the Plan Commission and the BZA the exhibits presented this evening. To their credit, they have done a good job with the document for review in determining the setbacks and buffers, and have made it easier to determine. The development standard requirements will be a matter for the BZA to explore. However, it was apparent at the Plan Commission meeting that a better understanding of the process was wanted. At the endofthi,s process, it would be good to have the Plan Commission make some kind of representation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Department's position in regard to the plat vacation was to recommend approval to the Commission, knowing that the BZA would have an opportunity to review the development standards and setbacks and design requirements with the school when they came through with the Special Use 'Amendment At this. time the Department is recommending that this item be forwarded to the full Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. What was not specifically addressed was the provision in the requirements through this plan. The Department is not asking that the Plan Conunission approve. the plat vacation subject to what is shown, but the petitioner has made r:epresentations that the Plan Commission can rely upon. Part of the plan being proposed to the BZA includes the installation of a privacy fence, and the landscaping plan. It is not suggested thatthe Plan Commission approve the plat vacation subject to the landscape plan shown or the tree replacement aud mitigation efforts because the Plan Commission could be StBpping on the BZA's toes. We can rely upon this representation that the petitioner will move forward with this plan to the BZA. These representations, to the Department's mind, are adequate and meet the intent and spirit of plat vacation. The Department will reserve additional comments for preview by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Page 9 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 10 of25 Remonstrance: Mars4all and Sandy Andish, 120 Sylvan Lane, Carmelwood, 32 years in the community and 14 years in his cuuent home, states his house has become unmarketable because of the school's plan. If they cannot sell their home, they may be forced to rent it. If this proposal is approved, it is a true inequity because of the false representations by the school to Mr. & Mrs. Andish. ????, 135 Audubon Drive, has monitored this process and states that it has been open and informative. Believes the proposal isa good plan and eliminates a number of current problems. Mr. ???? agreed with Mr. Andish that his property is now becoming a buffer and that is a defInite issue. Perhaps some consideration should be given to Mr. & Mrs. Andish. Having the high school as a neighbor is different than any other situation-having 3800 persons uniformly come into that locality sandwiched between two neighborhoods is different, but it also has some nice things-this is a wonderful neighborhood. The school is trymg to do a number of things above and beyond the norm to retain a number of the wonderful things about the neighborhood. Bryan Borlick, 145 Audubon Drive, Cannelwood, said it was difficult to feel sorry for Mr. & Mrs. Andish because when they purchased their home, there was a. vacant com field next door and the likelihood is that it would be developed. Mr. Borlick said he had a problem with the school board's proposal. Mr. Borlick 'said he pUrchased his home because ofthe land, 2 Y:, acres, and trees. Mr. Borlick did not expect the high school to furiher expand and he is now dealing with traffic, noise, (rap music) and football games and noise until 11 at night. :Mr. Borlick believes the traffic situation has now been addressed but still has three concerns: Light, Noise, and Trees. It is unique to have residential properties with such old trees. It looks as if some trees will be saved and that is good. Mr. Bor1ick said 'he was not notified by the school of their plans and only learned of the proposal from his neighbors. Mr. Borlick frnallyreceived a registered letter from,theschoolon January 3,2003. One tree is worth one parking space, and for every tree we can save by getting rid of a parking space, it is a good thing. Currently there is a big open field that is not used for anything-let's put 20 parking spaces back there and take 20 away from the cunent proposal; therebypIOviding a larger buffer. A high school is an "incompatible use." I have kids !'lmning tl.rrough my yard all ofthe time. Another item is naturel wildlife. There are two-foot tall homed owls, deer, etc. There will be an ecologiCal impact in terms of the number of trees removed. Wayne Haney asked about the berming and its location. Jeff Bolinger, Landscape Architect, said there is berming occurring in some' of the separation between the garage and the residential properties. Mr. Bolinger pointed out those places where berms will be located. The parking in question replaces only the existingparking because it will be lost by the addition. One of the designs oftPe freshman center is to have an identity aI!d a front door that is separate from the main high school. The school has tried to balance parking and re-Iocation of existing trees as well as saving as many as possible. Dave Cremeans said it looked like the school was takillg out about 50 trees. Ron. Houck cO,mmented it would have been more logical to acquire property along Sylvan Lane and structure development around that road rather than crossing the road. Audubon Lalle could have been left as is and separated from the proposed development. Chuck Taylor? Said the proposal takes advantage of the natural drainage and grading. Part of the property is very low and the natural drainage goes right through it. . Jon DQbosiewicz reported the Department. had talked with the school approximately 6 months regarding this proposal and made sure that the school 'j.Vou1d be sensitive to the landscaping-the minimum would not work! This pal1icular pian could be implemented without the two pal'ce1s. Two of the parcels the schoo~ has incorporated into the design. The two parcels enhance the huffer from what is existing today, (130 to 170 feet) to over 300 feet between .the structure and the nearest homesite. Jon Dobosiewicz disagreed with the premise that the Andish home becomes thetransition--it is the adjacent lot 'and the adjacent area of a portion of the lot purchased by the school. There are no buffers that exist within the community that are superior to the buffering and transitioning provided by the school. IUs vastly superior to the minimum required under the Ordinance. An unidentified member of the public said he supports the proposal and feels it is probably the best alternative. When asked, he did not feel that his property would be devalued by this proposal. Page 10 1 . Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 11 of25 Jon Dobosiewicz commented that the school has expressed their responsibility with regard to the expansion of the facility, to mitigate negative impacts. The school has not used eminent domain in proceeding with this because that is not their style and they do not want to force the issue. The school will make it right with the property O"Wllers to the extent that their obligation is the difference between the appraisal pre-change and an appraisal post-change. If the school were willing to prepare a condition that Plan CoIIlIIlission attorney John Molitor could review and approve, it would address the issue. The school attorney could interface with the Plan Commission attorney and come up with language appropriate to satisfy the condition under which the Commission would adopt the proposaL Ron Houck moved to recommend. approval of Docket No. 165-02 PV, Carmel High School Campus Plat Vacation, subject to the condition that prior to the full Plan Commission meeting, the attorney for the school and Jolm Molitor work together to provide a v.'Titten commitment that mitigates any property value damage to the two remaining parcels on the south side of Sylvan Lane. The motion was seconded by Stephanie Blackman and approved 5-0. Page 11 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 12 of25 D Item 1-13j. exhibit D CarmeIlClay Schcmls- Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Plah Commission January 21, 2003 5j. Doclc.etNo.165-02 PV; Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation) The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision in order to modify the Cannel High School Campus. The site is zoned R-2 (Residential). Filed byAlien J. Cradler, AlA of Fanrung/I-Iowey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Charles Tyler of Fanning/Howey Associates, 9205 North River Road, Indianapolis, appeared before the Corrunission representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Roger McMichael, Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs, Carmel Schools, and Ron Farrand, Carmel Schools Transportation. Request is being made for the vacation of a portion of the Carmelwood Subdivision with the School corporation as purchaser of the property. Resolution is to be made of street and right -of- way issues. Regarding the loss of established trees within the Carmelwood neighborhood, the petitioper has been working with Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, on a tree preservation plan. The plan, as developed, does remove approximately 50 existing trees with a plan to relocate over 60 existing trees and planting over 150 hew trees. In addition, there were concerns expressed from some of the neighbors regarding the reduction of green space. One of the analyses completed indicates that with the addition of the 6 properties and even with the expansion of the freshman campus to the northwest, the subsequent, resulting buffer space between building and the nearest property is increased over yxisting conditions. There were also questions as to screening of residential properties from the school property, specifically the parking lot and drive. The School has been working with the homeowners to develop a plan that combines some new planting materials, some berrning, and some new fences in order to address privacy issues bern-een the school and residential property owners. Traffic flow in the vicinity of the high school with the addition of the freshman campus was also looked at. Steve Febiibach, traffic engineer with A & F Engineering, has completed an analysis that supports the disconnect of the school property from the north, the Carmel wood neighborhood. The school is retaining an emergency vehicle drive that gives emergency crews two access points into the neighborhood, but no normal, vehicular traffic would be aJ10wed between the school property and the adjacent property owners. All traffic will be directed to a controlled intersection either via stop signs or automatic signal~onsidered to be an improvement over existing conditions_ As a part of the project, the school will be' re-connecting Audubon Drive to Sylvan Lane so that neighborhood connectivity is maintained, Regarding the Taylor property and the Christy House, the School Corporation is in the process ofreceiving bids on the property for the potential consideration of re-Iocating the house. Roger McMichael, Assistant Superintendent of Camlel Clay Schools Business Affairs addressed the Commission regarding the School's impact on adjacent property owners. During the course. of discussion with the Subdivision Corrunittee, one neighbor in particular feels that the proposed school project will devalue their property_ It was not intent of the School Corporation to devalue the property and while the school does not feel that is the case, they carmot guarantee that it isn't the case. The idea was expressed at Committee that the School could appraise the property before the proposed changes are put in place and appraise the property after-the-fact. If there were any devaluation, the school could pay the homeowner the difference. The School's legal counsel did not think this was appropriate and there was discussion between School counsel and Plan Conunissioh counsel regarding the matter. The response from the School's legal counsel wasm a two-page letter distributed this evening to Commission members and the Department. It was felt that paying the homeowner a difference in appraised value was not consistent with the State Statute; also, the School corporation might then be in a position of being cited by the State Board of Accounts as not having the authority to make such payment, should that occur. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, the question would be whether or not this would set a precedent for not only the School Corporation butthe City of Carmel as well as other governmental entities. . Finally, there is a process in place through the Courts that is referred to as "inverse Page 12 'Department Report CarrneVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals Febniary 24, 2003 Page 13 of 25 condemnation ," and if this issue were to be raised, it would be in the Courts. For these reasons, it was determined that a before appraisal and after appraisal would not be workable. Jon Dobosiewicz referred to the State Statute that indicates the Plan Commission shall approve the application to vacate a plat, covenants, and public utilities only upon the finding that the value of part of the land in the plat not owned by the petitioner will not be diminished by a vacation. The Conunittee believed that there was some reduction or diminished value to the adjoining property and was willing to entertain a commitment from the petitioner to off'-set that diminished value; the commitment was expected to be received this evening. This item is not with regard to use but rather to the plat vacation and whether or not the plat vacation diminishes the value ofthe adjoining lots within the plat. The use question here is for the Board of Zoning Appeals to decide. It is incumbent upon the Plan Commission to frndthat the plat vacation does not diminish the value of adjoining or additional lots within the subject plat by the nature ofthe vacation. Based upon information received from the applicant today, the Department finds it necessary for the petitioner to either submit an alternative to the proposal given to the Subdivision Cominittee and how they wish to address the perceived reduction in value, and whether or not they would be willing to off-set that reduction, Based upon the language in the letter presented this evening, the Department cannot recommend approval of the plat vacation at this time and this item should be returned to the Committee for further review and discussion. There were comments from the Committee Chair, Dave Cremeans, and other Commission members as well that the School Corporation should consider purchasing the two homes on Sylvan Lane that are the most affected by the school's proposaL Dave Cremeans stated an unwillingness to vote for the plat vacation at this time in view of the letter received this evening. Wayne Wilson commented that from the time this proposal was first presented and the neighbors' reaction and concerns known, there is a high degree of arrogance on the part of the Scllool and disrespect for this body to present the two-page letter at this hour. This process is still in the beginning stage and the woods haven't even been discussed yet. Perhaps a vote should be called for this evening rather than'returning this item to Committee, thereby creating a clear picture for the school of what the Plan Commission is about. Marilyn Anderson reasoned that it was logical compromise to purchase the two homes and if there were a negative, economic impact and the School was willing to make it up, then the negative impact would go away and the Commission could recommend approval. At the very least, this now needs to go back to Committee. In response to questions from the Cormnission, Jon Dobosie'Nicz said if this item were voted on this evening and denied, the School would have a 12-month time frame before they could re-apply. There is the potential of legal action by the School against the Plan Co"mmission in a denial; then we would be faced with some type of settlement or going through the legal process. Taking this item back to Committee gives the applicant an opportunity to re- address the situation. Jon suggested that the Committee is the proper place to resolve the issues. Ron Houck had additional comments and thought there may have been a gross misunderstanding on the part of the applicant in terms of direction given at the Committee level. It is disappointing that the direction was not followed by the applicant and they are perfectly able to judge the sentiment and comments made this evening and how the vote might go. The applicant could then accept the outcome and deal with the system to redress the issues or we could go back to Committee with the idea that the original direction would be followed. Dave Cremeans moved to return Docket No. 165-02 PV, Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation) to the Subdivision Committee and the applicant is to review comments made by Committee members at the time recommendation was made for approvaL The motion was seconded by Ron Houck and Approved 11-0. This item will return to Commitlee on February 4,2003. Page 13 Department Rep0l1 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 14 of25 .. Items 1-13j. exhibit E Carmel/Cia}' Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Subdivision ComD.1ittee February 4, 2003 2. Docket'No. 165-02 PV; Carmel High SchoolCampus (Plat Vacation) The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision in order to 'modify the Cannel High SchooL Campus. The site is zoned R-2,(Residi:mtial). Filed by Allen 1. Cradler, AlA ofFanning/Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Note: Tape did not record discussion on this item. Marilyn moved to recommend approval of Docket No. 165-02 PV, Carmel High School P'lat Vacation to the full Commission, seconded by Wayne Haney. APPROVED 5-0. Items 1.13j. exhibit F Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Plan Commission February 18, 2003 The Minutes of the February 18, 2003, Plan Cpmmission meeting are not yet available. Page 14 . Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 Page 15 of25 Item 1-13j. exhibit G Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Location Map Page 15