Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 03-24-03 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 55 of 75 u u u " K. Old Business. 1-13k. Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High 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-196-02 925.07.01-2 5-square-foot traffic directional sign B V-197-02 925.07.01-2 6-square-foot traffic directional sign C V-J98-02 925.07.01-2 19.5-square-foot traffic directional sign D V-l99-02 925.07.01-2 four-foot (4') traffic directional sign D V-200-OJ 925.07.02-5(b)(i) eight (8) institutional signs V-20l-02 925.07.02-5(b)(ii) two (2) changeable copy signs V-202-02 S25.07.02-5(c)(i) 29.25-square-foot institutional wall sign V-203-02 S25.07.02-5(c)(i) 24.5-square-foot institutional wan sign V-204-02 S25.07.02-5(c)(ii) 24-square-foot changeable copy sign V-205-02 S25.07.02-5(d) 6' 2" institutional ground sign V-206-02 S 8.04.0 1 57 -foot building height The site is located at 520 East Main Street. The site is zoned R-2/Residence. S25 .07.01-02 Definitions. 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." S25.07.02-05 Institutional Uses. a) SIGN CLASSIFICATION: Wall sign or grOLmd sign. b) NUMBER & TYPE: i) One (1) institutional sign and ii) One (1) sign with changeable copy. c) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA: i) Institutional sign: Thirty (30) square feet; li) Changeable copy sign: Sixteen (16) square feet. d) MAXIM1JlVf HEIGHT OF GROUND SIGN: Five (5) feet. e) LOCATION: No sign shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the street right-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 with the aTchitectural design of the structure which the sign identifies. g) COPY: As per defuritions of institutional sign and changeable copy. h) fLLUMINA TION: Permitted. Page 55 Department Report CarmeUClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 56 of75 u u u i) LANDSCAPING: Ground Signs mllst be accompanied by a landscaped area at least equal to the total Sign Area. j) REQUIRED APPROVALS: All permanent signs requiring a pennit that are established in the R-5, B-4, B-7, B-8, 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. 98.04 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) p6.01 Additional Height ReqUlrements. 926.01.01 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. At the Mondav. February 24.2003. meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. the Board requested that the petitioner conduct traffic counts and outline current and proposed traffic conditions for the site. The stated goal of this exercise is to develop an efficient plan to get traffic in and out of the school site. Please see supplemental information forwarded with this report. 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 of the 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 Carmel 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 Planning & Zoning, the Carmel/Clay Fire Department and the Carmel Police Department prior to an Improvement Location Permit being issued for this project; 5. That all T AC issues 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 Board remedied all other sign issues on this site on November 26. 2001, per Docket Nos. V -115-01 through V -160-01. Page 56 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 57 of75 u u u The Department recommends favorable consideration of Docket Nos. V-195-02 throul!h V-205-02 for signage. The Department recommends favorable consideration ,of the request (Docket No. V -206- 02) for a 57-foot tall principal structure. The section of the addition that will rise to this height is set back from the fayade of the building, effectively screened by perspective. Page 57 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 58 of75 u u u Item 1-13k. exhibit A Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Technical Advisory Committee December 18, 2002 CarmelfClay Schools - Carmel High School (Special Use, DSV) The applic;mt seeks to construct a building addition and new parking areas at the Carmel High School Campus. Filed by Allen Cradler ofFanning/I-Iowey Associates for Carmel 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 a 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 tTaffic going into the neighborhood. We tried to solve that by once the properties were purchased, we saw an opportunity to discoIll1ect the internal drives from the high school to that neighborhood. We will reconnect Sylvan and Audubon from the 4th Avenue 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 shifted, come from the north, and 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 be a detention to take care. of runoff. A natural detention and drainage flow now exists across the property. A picture of the building is now shown. Weare using brick to match the latest addition of the building and incorporating precast concrete to tie the buildiI).gs 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 mechal1ical mezzarilne 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 based 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 of the shock to the trees. If everything remains on schedule, we will break ground in April. We had a meeting this week with Skillman to get our 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 parking areas for staging (islands and trees will be considered). Allen, the demolition will be the first item ofbusiness. 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 put the property back up for sale? This could be used as a buffer. Ron, we do not want to be landlords. We want the buffer in terros of the property. Jon, my question is if you put it back up for sale with a deed restriction, it appears abetter buffer than if the house goes away. TIlls 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. If we have the opportunity to buy, we wouldn't want to turn around and seI1 it. Our feeling is we have it for a buffer and as a green space then there is no potential conflict. 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 Page 58 T Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 59 of75 u u u side will remain. We will provide a handicap accessible ramp. At the soccer field there \..ill be a ticket building. Some of the paving will be replaced. The west side paving will be repaired and a new gate for emergency vehicles will be added. It cmrently is a turn style and ticket area to the football field. Laurence, has any thought been given to what the ultimate size of the school 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 growth and all other factors. We have no guarantees that the numbers won't change. JolUl 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 conunents section. Deficiencies constiuJte 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 Carmel Clay was at a certain level and that has accelerated dramatically. This remaining build out is more defmed. As this develops over time, the ability to predict the ultimate capacity of buildings is a little better. The superintendent has indicated that if for some reason there is further expansion that will be the time to look at other solutions such 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 one 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, arc 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 Commission, it could run in parallel to the Special Use approval. Ultimately they both need to be finalized. 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 middle school. 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 verify that the houses do not have asbestos'? Petitioner confirms that Phase One has been done on all the houses. Five houses will be torn town. Ron, depending on the public auction of the Taylor/Christy home there might be six homes torn down. If someone buys it, the new owner could have it moved. Jim has a demolition permit requirement. Will students need to pass through 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 pre submittal meeting required before building permits can be issued. Allen, other routes for student movement have been checked with Gary. Gary met with Jeff and Allen last week and all issues have been resolved except one. You arc showing the emergency access road going back to Sylvan and Audubon Drive will be closed off early in the project. We will need that access open. Be sure you don't park construction trailers in that area. Dick Hill has not completed the department comments letter. The new segment will be dedicated. Allen, the vacation of right-of-way was completed the last time we were here through the City COlUlcil and BPW. Jon, you should put together a separate set that addresses the sequence. That might aLso be effective in addressing the questions and comments. Page 59 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 60 of75 u u u 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 constTIlction. Jon would like to schedule a meeting before January 71h to talk about some of the issues that were discussed as parL of the plat vacation. We want to be sure we can effectively address all the questions. I would suggest you engage the services of a traffic consultant. 1 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 Commission an adequate response Lo 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. One of the 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 think 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 showing how it's going 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 before 1 can issue a Docket Number Friday. Allen, the intent is not to illuminate the sign. Laurence, Paul Cripe is the consultant for the school and he submitted the sign variance proposals for this. These numbers will be tagged to those numbers. In 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 onhe overall building showing Lhem where each is located. You can get a copy of that information from the fire department. We would like a list of where signs will be relocated or eliminated. Dates to remember: January 2nd is the notice deadline and the meeting is on January 27th. As a final note, any issues you can resolve or any opportunity you have to work with the PC, 1 would encourage you to do so. If you get to BZA and two of the members are comfortable with what is going on, it is more than likely that the other tlu'ee will also be comfortable. Page 60 Departll1ent Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24,2003 Page 61 of75 u u u Item 1-13k. exhibit B Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Plan Commission December 17, 2002 8h. Docket No. 165-02 PV; Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation) The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision in order to modify the Carmel High School Campus. The site is zoned R-2/Residence. Filed by Allen J. Cradler, AlA of Fanning/Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Alan Cradler, architect with Falliling/Howey Associates appeared before the Commission representing Carmel 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 at420 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 will submit a vacation request of right-of-way for Sylvan Lane and Audubon Drive. Once the approval process is complete, the new propelty 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 internal 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 will keep 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) will 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 proposal, most important of which is discollilecting Audubon Drive Jiom 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/Oppos i hon: 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 neighborhood down with this proposal. Ms. Taylor o",ned 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 torn 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 61 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 62 of75 lJ u u 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. Sandra 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 have 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 property. Bryan Borlick, 145 Auduboll Drive, requests a larger buffer/tree area. It is most upsetting that one of Carmel's oldest neighborhoods and the old Christy home and old trees ",ill 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 tree 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 established trees should be allowed to remain. Mike Reeding, 119 Audubon Drive, immediately north of the new school property line, said the school has addressed traffic concems and some others. Meetings have been held, sometimes not with the best notice. The trees are a concem, type of fencing at property lines, buffer, water runoff and drainage. Note: The public hearing will remain open on this item. The BZA will review standards for t11e 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 Tec1mical Advisory Committee. The petitioner has done an existing 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 Amendment. 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 revie'Wing 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 the BZA for discussion. The Department is recommending 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 vacation 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 physical 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 wooded area off 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 tratlic reports 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 Dierckman spoke 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 school to do it right and not just sandwich in one more addition to the high school. If it takes more acreage to do this right, then the school should step up and purchase hOllses appropriately. The high school does need to make the freshman center work and they have tried to do it with minimal land-maybe even to the detriment in tenns 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 facilities 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 62 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 63 of75 u u u Item 1-13k. 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 Carmelwood Subdivision in order to modify the Carmel High School Campus. The site is zoned R-2IResidence. Filed by Allen J. Cradler, AlA of Faruling/Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Present for Petitioner: Chuck Taylor or:Fanning/Howey 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 tramc between the school use and neighborhood use so there is no through traffic. Mark Hartman appeared on behalf of the school and 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 recommendation 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 public comment. Dr. Underwood appeared before the Committee also on behalf of the school. The 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 number of issues that the plat vacation will allow the school to clarify, consolidate the property and allow them to move forward. Jon Dobosiewicz said that based on a 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 end of this 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 oppommity to review the development standards and setbacks and design requirements with the school when they came through with the Special Use Amendment. At this tinle 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 Commission approve the plat vacation subject to what is shown, but the petitioner has made representations 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 that the Plan Commission approve the plat vacation subject to the landscape plan shown or the tree replacement and mitigation efforts because the Plan Commission could be stepping 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 63 Department Report CarmelfClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 64 of 75 u u u Remonstrance: Marshall and Sandy Andish, 120 Sylvan Lane, Carmelwood, 32 years in the community and 14 years in his current home, states his house has become unmarketable because ofthe 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 rcpresentations 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 is a 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 asa neighbor is different than any other .situation-having 3800 persons uniformly come into that locality sandwiched benveen two neighborhoods is different, but it also has some nice things-this is a wonderful neighborhood. The school is trying 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, Carmelwood, said it was difficult to feel sorry for Mr. & Mrs. Andish because when they purchased their home, there was a vacant corn fi.eld 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 of the land; 2 I/, acres, and trees. Mr. Borlick did not expect the high school to further 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. Borlick said he was not notified by the school of their plans and only learned of the proposal from his neighbors. Mr. Borlick finally received a registered letter from the school on 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 current proposal, thereby providing a larger buffer. A high school is an "incompatiblE:: use." I have kids running through my yard all of the time. Another item is nature! wildlife. There are ITvo-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 existing parking because it will be lost by the addition. One of the designs of the freshman center is to have an identity and a front door that is separate from the main high school. The school has tried to balance parking and re-location of existing trees as well as saving as many as possible. Dave Cremeans said it looked like the school was taking out about 50 trees. Ron Houck commented it would have been more logical to acquire property along Sylvan Lane and structure development around that road rather than crossing the road. Audubon Lane 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 Dohosiewicz reported the Department had talked with the school approximately 6 months regarding this proposal and made sure that the school would be sensitive to the landscaping-the minimum would not work! This particular plan could be implemented without the two parcels. Two of the parcels the school has incorporated into the design. The two parcels enhance the buffer from what is existing today, (130 to 170 feet) to over 300 feet benveen the structure and the nearest homesite. Jon Dobosiewicz disagreed with the premise that the Andish home becomes the transition-it is the adjacentlot 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. It is 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 64 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 65 of75 u u u 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 owners 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 Commission 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 John Molitor work together to provide a written 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 65 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 66 of75 u u u Item 1-13k. exhibit D Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Plan Commission January 21,2003 5j. Docket No. 165-02 PV; Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation) The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision in order to modify the Carmel High School Campus. The site is zoned R.2!Residence. Filed by Allen J. Cradler, AlA of Fanning/Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Charles Tyler of Fanning/Howey Associates, 9205 North River Road, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Rogcr McMichael, Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs, Carmel Schools, and Ron Fanand, Camlel Schools Transportation. Request is being made for the vacation of a portion of the Carmel wood 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 petitioner 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 new 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 existing 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 berming, and some new fences in order to address privacy issues between 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 Fehribach, 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 allowed 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-considered to be an improvement over existing conditions. As a part of the project, the school will be re-conneeting 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 of receiving bids on the property for the potential consideration of re-locating the house. Roger McMichael, Assistant Superintendent of Carmel Clay Schools Business Affairs addressed the Commission regarding the School's impact on adjacent property owners. During the course of discussion with the Subdivision Committee, 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 camlOtguarantee 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 Commission counsel regarding the matter. The response from the School's legal counsel was in a two-page letter distributed this evening to Commission members and the Department. It was felt that paying the homeowner a difterence in appraised value was not consistent with the State Statute; also, the School corporation might thell 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 but the 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 66 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24,2003 Page 67 of75 u u u 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 refened 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 o\\'l1ed by the petitioner will not be diminished by a vacation. The Committee 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 cxpected to be received this evening. This itcm is not with regard to use but rather to the plat vacation and whether or not the plat vacation diminishes the value of the 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 find that the plat vacation does not diminish the value of adjoining or additional lots within the subject plat by the nature of the 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 Committee 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 camIot 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 Conunission 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 kno\\'l1, there is a high degree of anogance on the part of the School and disrespect for this body to present the two-page letter at this hour. This process is still in the begilliling 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 Cormnission 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 Conlluittee. In response to questions from the Commission, Jon Dobosiewicz 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 Cormnission 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 HOllck 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 Conunittee 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 Cormnittee and the applicant is to review comments made by Committee members at the lime recommendation was made for approvaL The motion was seconded by Ron Houck and Approved 11-0. This item will return to Committee on February 4,2003. Page 67 Department Report CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 68 of75 u u o Items l-13k. exhibit E Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Subdivision Committee February 4, 2003 2. Docket No. 165-02 PVj 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 J. Cradler, AlA of FanninglHowey 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 Plat Vacation to the full Connnission, seconded by Wayne Haney. APPROVED 5-0. Items l-13k. exhibit F Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Carmel/Clay Plan Commission February 18,2003 Ii. Docket No. 165-02 PV; Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation) The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision in order to modify the Carmel High School Campus. The site is zoned R-2 (Residential). Filed by Allen 1. Cradler, AlA of Fanning /Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Chuck Tyler of Fanning/Howey Associates, 9225 North River Road, Indianapolis appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. A resolution has been reached regarding the expansion/addition of the Freshmen center on the Carmel High School Campus, and that is the disposition of two of the properties previously identified as NOT being purchased by the School Corporation. The School Corporation WILL purchase the Marshall Andish property at 120 Sylvan Lane. The Weigels have no interest in seHing their home, but they do have an interest in seeing that the Andish property remains a residential property. The School Corporation is agreeable; the grade drops significantly in this part of the property. It is the School's intent to either re-sell the propelty at a later date or to rent the property, and this is agreeable to the Weigels. At the Committee meeting, there was additional discussion regarding traffic circulation and parking issues. These items continue to be worked on and it is hoped that supplemental information will be available to the BZA next Monday evening. Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. '. The issues discussed at the Committee level included a recommendation by the Department that the petitioner provide for review by the BZA at the time the Special Use is reviewed and exhibits presented showing parking areas and delineating their designations for restrictions regarding staff and/or public and student parking. The petition has been forwarded to the Commission with a 5-0 favorable recommendation, consistent with the discussion presented by the petitioner. Dave Cremeans reported for the Committee. There was a 5:00 PM letter received the day of the full Commission meeting and it did not agree with anything the Committee had agreed to earlier. That said, the petitioner did re-work their porlion and has agreed to purchase the Andjsh property and it will stay as a rental, residential, and act as a buffer to the next property. The second biggest concern was the traffic around the high school. Comments from the Committee were re-stated by Paul Spranger for the benefit of the pubic. One of the issues raised with the School was currently inadequate parking. Adding a freslunen center and approximately 150 more Page 68 Department RepOlt Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 69 of75 u u u cars for staff further congests the area. The Ordinance actually calls for parking to be within 300 feet of the building. The Committee had asked that the architect for the school corporation again look at the parking issues and bring the parking requirements nearer to the requirements of the Ordinance or the additional 1,000 student freshmen center. The other issue was the circulation road on the west-side of the school that will be re-designed. In the design is a curve adjacent to the drop-off point for the freshmen center. Perpendicular parking on the inside of the curve is proposed and that is not a good design from the safety standpoint. Cars will be backing up into a lane of traffic and across from this parking will be the cue line for the pick-up point for parents. This is the time to address the parking situation. Wayne Wilson commented that currently before the Council is legislation to declare Main Street, a city street, a bus- loading zone from 3:00 PM to 3:20 PM each day. Tllis proposal is because the school has overgrown their parking lot and the buses can no longer access the parking areas to load the kids because of parents entering the area to pick up their children. We are not going in the right direction I And now, we are talking about adding more traffic with the freshmen center. We don't want to see a city street become a bus loading/unloading zone. Ron Houck said it was not clear how the time course for the approval of the petition versus the resolution of parking issues would be handled. Mr. Tyler of Fanning Howey understood that this was to be a part of the presentation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The purpose of going before the BZA is for a Special Use Amendment. Jon Dobosiewicz said that from a technical standpoint, the petitioner has met the Ordinance requirements for parking. Recommendations and suggestions havc been made by the Committee and Plan Commission members- the Department is recommending the petitioner address the situation a bit more comprehensively. The BZA needs to have adequate information to base their decision regarding each parkit1g area-how it is designated and used on the site-whether it is for public or staff. The issue at hand and in front of the Plan COrnnllssion is review of the Plat Vacation. Nick Kestner asked what the net gain is on the parking lot. Mr. Tyler responded the net gain on the original proposal was 17 spaces. The BZA should see a significant improvement upon that number next week. However, the School is hoping for a range of 100 to 200 spaces. Marilyn Anderson commented that the Committee had wrestled with all of those issues. In the matter of the plat vacation, it helped to know there was a BZA member on the Committee hearing all of the issues and it was quite clear that the Committee wanted those issues addressed as fully as possible. The Committee ended feeling comfortable when the houses on the south side were addressed-the parking is a BZA issue. Marilyn Anderson moved for the approval of Docket No. 165-02 PY, Cai1nel High School Campus, Plat Vacation, seconded by Dave Cremeans. Marilyn Anderson then amended her motion for approval of Docket No. 165-02 PV, Carmel High School Campus, Plat Vacation, to include the following conditions. 1) The existing public right-of-way will be submitted to the Carmel City Council for vacation approval, and public right-of-way, public street, and emergency access easement will be dedicated to the Board of Public Works to reconnect Sylvan Lane to Audubon Drive. 2) It is in the public's interest to vacate the requested parcel for expansion ofthe public school professional landscape buffer space, and the elinlination of traffic concerns in the adjacent neighborhood. 3) The Carmel Clay School COIporation will purchase the residential property at 120 Sylvan Lane and retain the existing house on the property as a residential property. The house will remain to provide an additional buffer between the school property and the remaining private property on the south side of Sylvan Lane. Dave Cremeans amended his second. APPROVED with conditions as stated 13-0. Page 69 Department Report CanneVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 70 of 75 u u u Items 1-13k. exhibit G Carmel/Clay Schools - Cal"mel High School Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2003 l~13j. Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School (SUA-194-02; V-195-02 through V-206-02) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to construct a 173,000-square"foot Freshman Center addition to the existing high school. Petitioner also seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V-I 95-02 ~25.07 .01-02 l2-square-foot traffic directional sign A V-196-02 ~25.07.OJ -02 5-square-foot traffic directional sign B V-197-02 ~25.07.01-02 6-square-foot traffic directional sign C V-198-02 ~25.07.01-02 19.5-square-foot traffic directional sign D V-199-02 ~25.07.0l-02 four-foot (4') traffic directional sign D V-lOO-02 ~25.07.02-05(b)(i) eight (8) institutional signs V-201-02 ~25.07.02-05(b)(ii) two (2) changeable copy signs V-202-02 ~25.07.02-05(c)(i) 29.25-square-foot institutional wall sign V-203-02 ~25.07.02-05(c)(i) 24.5-square-foot institutional W(l.lI sign V-204-02 S25.07.02~05(c)(ii) 24-square-foot changeable copy sign V-205-02 ~25.07.02-05(d) 6' 2" institutional ground sign V-206-02 98.04.01 57-foot building height The site is located at 520 EastMain Street. The site is zoned R-2/Residence. Filed by WilliamE. Payne of Fanning/Howey Associates for the CarmeVClay School Corporation. Present for the Petitioner: Chuck Tyler, Famring/Howey Associates, 9025 N. River Road, Indianapolis, IN. Also present were Ron Farrand, Director of Facilities and Transportation with Cannel Clay Schools, and Allen Cradler and Jeff Bolinger with FanninglHowey Associates. Me. Tyler recounted how this project had come to this BZA meeting~ It has been comprehensive in scope and a very open community engaged process throughout. It began with designation of five facility plans as a part of the School Board work sessions in December 2000. That proceeded with the identification of a facilities planning committee of 64 members of the commurnty, staff, and students. That corrunittce met over the summer of 2001 wrestling with the challenges of the growing school district and pressures that were developing at multiple grade levels. In July 2001 recommendations were made to the School Board, wlrich began the facility improvement process. Prograrruning and conceptual design for the Freshman Center began in August 2001. A project website for all of the projects for all of the schools was developed to communicate with the Carmel citizenry in December of that year. Ultimately four conceptual plans were developed and presented for community review and input in March 2002. The Board approved an iniLial conceptual plan in April 2002. Schematic design approval was obtained in June 2002, design development approval in November 2002 and the construction document phase is almost completed. Community meetings were held throughout this design process to gain broader public input, as well as specifically targeted meetings to meet with adjacentproperty owners and address items of mutual concern. The task group ultimately generated a recommendation for a separate, but attached, Freshman Center. The desire being to create a separate identity for the Freshman Center with separate entrance, cafeteria, administration and guidance, but to take advantage of the resources of thc high .school itself, the library, advanced curriculum available to all students, performing arts and the physical education and athletic facilities. Freshman would generally remain within the Freshman Center for approximately eighty percent of their day and venture l11to the high school for specific resource areas. The desire has been to create the best of both worlds, to create identity for the freshmen in smaller learning communities, as well as not to duplicate resources between the Freshman Center and Carmel High School. The project has taken the shape of two additions, one on the east side and one on the west side of the building. The east side is a performing arts addition of approximately 14,000 to 15,000 square feet. The primary academic addition on the northwest side of the building is approximately 159,000 square feet. Initially there was no intent to purchase additional property to support this phn. As the design was shared with the public, a number of homeowners identified themselves as being agreeable to the sale of their property, specifically in the area northwest of the existing building. Six properties were purchased and have become a part of the site development. As of the Plan Corrunission's hearings, a seventh property has been added to that list. The intent has been upon improving the relationship between the school corporation, the high school, and residential properiy to the northwest, to improve upon existing conditions and to buffer and separate the residential property from the school property. That has been Page 70 Department Report Cannel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 71 of7 5 u u u accomplished through existing tree retention, the development of extended landscape areas, and berming and fencing. A great deal of discussion has occurred with regard to traffic flow. The approach of separating the school driveway from the adjacent residential drive was determined to be the best approach. As pad of this project there is a redirection and recOIlllectioll of Audubon Drive and Sylvan Lane. The separation of the school property and residential area was a high pl~iority. An emergency only egress has been incorporated at the desire of both Police and Fire Departments. Bus loading is a concern and an issue. The existing bus loading area on the west end of the building will be retained. The nodh drive from Smokey Row Road and the turn around are being reconfigured to allow bus queuing and loading on the north to address concerns with the current number of buses and the number needed to serve the expandcd facility in the future. A part of this deve1opmenton the north, is the creation of a fifteen to eighteen foot wide sidewalk to connect thc north entrance with the parking to the north of Smokey Row Road. The expanded pavement and guardrail system will allow this drive to be operationaL The Freshman Center will have a new main entrance and that will provide a new point of student drop off As part of this development, the new parking replaces the existing parking that is lost via this construction. One hundred fifty-two spaces are being incorporated. Zoning for this facility would require 2350 parking spaces. The proposed plan includes 2539 spaces, including the 152 additional spaces. This builds upon what was previously approved in 1996 with regard to utilizing the remote parking adjacent to the football field. Another concern has been tree preservation. The current plan calls for 159 new trees, the relocation of 67 existing trees of a size that makes them reasonable to relocate, and the loss of 51 existing trees. There are a number of trees that are smaller than six inches and it is the intent to preserve as many of those as possible. Allen Cradler, Fanning/Howey Associates, 9025 N. River Road, Indianapolis, IN. Mr. Cradler addressed the building elevations. They are consistent with, or blend in with, the existing buildings, utilizing matching brick. Some pre-cast concrete panels have been brought in. This will create an identifiable building that will tie in with existing buildings. A canopy out front will have a different design. The height of the building and windows will blend in and match the existing buildings. The height variance is for a three-story building with a 57-foot mechanical penthouse. It is set back from the edge of the building and therefore its impact is lessened. The new site signage is consistent with existing directional and wall signage on the site. Mr. Tyler noted that they are in agreement with conditions stated by staff with regard to rights-of-way, combining the property into a single tax parcel, right-of-way connection and rededication, emergency access easement, and the resolution of any outstanding T AC items. Remonstrance: Public in Support: Frank Vanovermeiren, 135 Audubon Drive, Carmel, IN. He had been very active in monitoring the proposed plans from thc very beginning. He had attended numerous School Board meetings, watched dozens of meetings on TV, made presentations to those meeting, had met with school people, had telephone conversations and emails, and other community meetings. He had a couple of minor things he would like addressed at this meeting and as part of the approval. First, that the properties to the north and to the west of the existing right-of-way that is proposed as a green space buffer remain as is and that any future development of that property require BZA approval, including the development of additional parking space. Sccond, the school has purchased one additional property and it has not been made public on exactly what the intent is of that property. Lastly, the situation regarding the smaller trees, it hasn't been identified what will happcn with them. They could potentially be relocated prior to development of the parcels. Public in Opposition: Wayne Wilson, 24 Wilson Drive, Carmel, IN. He was neither in support or opposition. He wanted to bring some attention to the BZA. Something that has come up at the City Council level is relying on the football field to create additional parking space. Bus loading zone is on Main Strcet, utilizing a city street to load school buses. He thought tonight's meeting would address the bus loading issue and additional parking concerns. The City Council will be addressing the bus-loading zone on a city street. Rebuttal: Ron Farrand, Director of Facilities and Transportation tor the school corporation, 5304 Underwood Court Carmel, IN. He stated with regard to the bus issue, the back drives are being reconfigured to relieve the buses off the street. Their best efti:llt has been to balance the green space with the need for parking. They are trying to leave some grcen Page 71 Department Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24,2003 Page 72 of75 u u \.) areas for students around the buildings. They could all be used for parking, but they felt the green space was best for the environment. Mr. Tyler felt the school corporation would have no difficulty with the requirement that any changes to the property come back to the BZA. There is not a final resolution as to how the Andich property will be handled, other than the school's commitment to retain it as a residential property, either through sale, which would be preferable, or through rentaL They have made the further commitment to the Weigels, which is the next house to the west, that the Andich property would remain a residence. At this point he was not sure how much more detail they could get on the smaller trees. It would be the intent for areas to remain undisturbed, but they would not know until the property is staked. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. He pointed out the letter that the Board had received from Paul Spranger, President of the Plan Commission, dated February 22, 2003. Mr. Spranger's letter expressed the parking concerns the Plan Commission would like to have addressed as part of this process. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of V -195-02 through V -205-02 for signage. The signs are consistent with the signs considered previously for the high school and the other school facilities. The Department is also recommending favorable consideration for the 57-foot height variance request. With respect to SUA-l 94-02, the Department recommends five conditions. First, the vacation of the lots and rights-of-way within the Carmelwood Subdivision plat needs to be accomplished. The Plan Commission has approved its aspect of the plat vacation. The legal document accomplishing that will need to be finalized and recorded. The rights-of-way for Audubon Drive and Sylvan Lane will also need Council approval. Second, that all the tax parcels shall be comb.ined into one tax parcel and a single legal description is provided for the entire property. Third, the rights-of-way for Sylvan Lane and Audubon Drive connecting the remainders of those two streets will need to be taken to the Cannel Board of Public Works and Safety for dedication acceptance and a copy of that document will also need to be recorded and returned to the City. Fourth, the emergency access easement that would connect Sylvan/Audubon connection to the drive within the Carmel High School site needs to be described and also taken to the Board of Public Works for dedication and acceptance. Finally, the Department is recommending that all outstanding TAC issues be resolved. Mrs. Rice, as. a member of the Plan Commission, expressed the Plan Commission's concerns over this project. There are a number of serious safety issues, which need to be addressed. Most of those concerns were expressed in the letter from the Plan Commission President, Mr. Spranger. She asked that the petitioner address each of these issues and suggestions ofMr. Spranger. Mr. Weinkauf wanted to know if every student at Carmel High School could ride the bus, if they chose. Mr. Farrand responded there was not adequate space for each student. However, they have found that from the later part of sophomore year many choose not to ride the bus. Mr. Weinkauf found it interesting that several years ago the School Board decided to integrate freshmen into the high school. He wondered if that was for the benefit of the students or the benefit of the overcrowded middle schools at that time. Now the intent is to segregate the freshmen. Why? The high school location is already extremely crowded for facilities and parking, when there is other school land in other areas. It is hard to vote for a new Freshman Center with all the concerns that exist. Mr. Farrand stated that Carmelwood properties around the school are not easy to use for parking because of differences in grade. The GO-member committee thought the Freshman Center was a good idea for the students. If lhe structure was located somewhere else, the students would not have lISC of the resources at the high school and many resources would need to be duplicated. Areas are vastly overcrowded for parking, but other areas are not full. Many people chose to park close to the door, regardless of the other parking being available. The doors to the facility are open and a person who parks anywhere on the site can walk through the building to an activity. They have chosen to have green space and not all asphalt around the buildings. Strip 'parking along the access road can be eliminated. Discussion continued regarding the parking issues, the bus staging on Main Street, and traffic flow of the buses and parents' cars. Mr. Wilson commented on the amount of traffic in front of the school on Main Street in the mornings, making it impossible to get in and out of private driveways on Main Street. There are only two officers stationed in front of the school, with no effect on traffic control going away from the school. He had not heard how the bus loading along Main Street would be addressed. He noted there is a shuttle from the football field parking lot for sporting Page 72 DepartJnent Report Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 73 of75 u u u events. The City has spent an inordinate amount of money restricting parking on nearby streets by the students. Specific commitments need to be made for parking arrangements. Mr. Farrand commented that the buses would be dropping students on the backside of the school without using the streets. The only solution would be structured parking. He felt this would cause problems with the east side neighbors. That would pave over what little green space is left. Mr. Mohr stated that looking at this plan, as the school grows, sooner or later that green space is going to be paved. When do we get to the point we look at a second high school? Mr. Farrand could not answer the question about another school. He did not know if the School Board could answer that question. The projected growth for the community, when it is built out, will be handled by this building. Mr. Li1lig pointed out that the plan shared tonight had an auxiliary parking lot in the northeast that is an increase from the original plan that was in the packets. Discussion continued regarding the bus staging and traffic flow on Main Street, a traffic study, and sacrificing green space. Roger Conn, 736 E. Main Street, Carmel, IN. He lives there and worked the traffic in front of the high school for seventeen years as a Carmel Policeman. The heaviest flow of traffic coming in from Keystone was 7: 15-7:55 AM. He discussed traffic flow in and around the school. Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Lillig stated that a traffic study is for the impact of use on surrounding roadways. An operation analysis is for the onsite flow of tramc and how it is all functioning. The Board is looking for more of an internal or operation analysis. Mr. Farrand requested something in writing that clearly states goal for what they are being asked to study. Mr. Mohr stated the Board was trying to find a more efficient way to get tramc in and out of the school, not necessarily a traffic count, but an efticient plan. Mr. Lillig suggested the Board dispose of the variances tonight, so the Board can focus on the traffic analysis at next month's meeting. He wanted clarification of outcome with respect to all the analysis of the onsite traffic. Is it ultimately toward revisions to the site plan or refinements of the operations themselves, given this site configuration? Mr. Mohr stated that both are needed. Mr. Weinkauf stated that without the Special Use approval for the Freshman Center, there would be no need for the vanances. Mr. Lillig asked if the entire use hinges on traffic issues or arc they resolvable issues? Mr. Dierckman felt a very well thought out traffic plan or traffic study will be needed to get the approvals. Mr. Lillig stated that the Department would meet with the petitioner to set the parameters and specifics for the study. Mr. Dierckman moved to table SUA"194-02; V-195-02 through V-206-02. Carmel/Clay Schools - CarmeJ High School. The motion to table was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3-1, with Mr. Weinkauf casting the opposing vote. Page 73 I ' Department Report U CarmeVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 74 of75 u u Item 1-13k. exhibit H Carmel/Clay Schools - Carmel High School Location Map Page 74 Department Report CarrneVClay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 75 of75 w u u L. New Business. 11. East 961h Street Office Park - Kirsch & Kirsch (UV-176-00c) Petitioner seeks approval of revised Tenant Identification signage. The site is located at 2930 East 96th Street. The site is zoned S-2/Residence. T ARLED at petitioner's request. Page 75