HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication
!'~ ..
. ;:,
,
,
FEE:
>'~ ,
-.Y- 1$ :~/
"OC:"W'\l . ' ...;;,
l\(:.. If) t ,'\) I" ..-a
Ute 1 (; :..\:\;... ,-
DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS VARIANCEREQU EST'>, UOCS ~/
\~~\ ....;
\""":-. --'.
$630.00 for"thefirst plus $70.00 for each additional section of tl]e Ordinarlc'~e9~varje~. . .j;"
~~~..
U CITY OF CARMEL - CLAY TOWNSHIU
HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA
. ..
f'
APPLICATION FOR BOARD OFZONINGAPPEALS ACTION,'
DOOKET NO.
DATE REOEIVED:
1) Applicant: Kevi n McKasson, Gl endal e Partners
Address: 320 N,. Mer-idian Street" Ste too, Indpls. IN 46204
2)
Project Name: West Carmel Center Block A
P.han~: 294-9600
Engineer/Architect: Ampric.an (onC:IILting. Tnr:
Phone: 547-5580
Attorney:
Phone:
3) Applicanfs Status: (Check the appropriate respense)
XX (a) The applicant'.s name is on the deed to the property
(b) The applicant is the contract purch~ser of the property
(c) Other:
4) If Item 3) (c) is checked, please Qomplete t,he fo!lowilig:
Owner of the property involv.ed: Gl endal e i>artners of West Carine 1 Center Shoppes, LLC
Owner's address: 320 N. .Meri di an Str.:'eet, Sui te 700
Phone:' 294~9600
5) Record ofOw[1ership:
De~Q BOClk NojlnstrumentNo. Instr.R 199909958215
Page:
Purchase date:
6)
"Com1T10n address of the property involved:
4335 W l06th Street
Legal description:
TaxMapParGeINo.:
7) State explanation of reque~ted DevelQpm~nta,1 Standards'V~riance: (State what you war;}t to do and cite the section
.D.u.mb~r(S) of the .carmel/Clay Zqning, Orqina.llqe yvhich applies anp/o.r creates.the need for this reEluest}.
Ihe petltlOner requests a vanance to amend provlslons WhlCh relates to the, US 421
Michi'ga,n Road Overlay 'Zone. Section 23C.10.2 (2). Foundation Plantinqs. Thepetitione
requests that the foundation plantingsalong the rear of t~e building be converted
to trees,( at a ratio of 3 shrubs. equal s onatree) and moved to the ~rass area between
Commer'e:;e Ori ve and the rear access- dri've.
Page.1 of 8 u Developmental Standerds Variance-Application
,
.i';'>
8)
I "
V
State reasons supporting the Developmental Standards Variance: (Additionally, complete the attached question
Jiheet ~rititled "Fib.dings of Fact-D~velopmental Stqndards Variance,"). . ' " .
The slte was lna(lvertantly constructed wlth no plantlng areas locatedah>ng the rear
of the bui 1 d; n9. G; yen the screen'; ng ,b~njlfi tasso,ci ated wfth those foundation plant; n
ban no longer be realized, ';t ;s proposed that alternate, more comprehensne
screen;"9 be provi ded to mlti:g,ate absense of foundati on pl antin9s on theeas,t si'de
of the ~k~stfng bui1ding.
u
9) Present zoning of the, property (give exact classification):, B-3
10)
Size of lotlparcelih question:
3,.673
acres
11) Present use oUhe property: Reta i UConunerci a 1 Stri p Center
12) Describe the proposea use of the property: Commercia 1
13) Is tme property: Qwner occupied
Renter occupied X
Other
14) Are there any restrictions, laws!' covenants, variances, special uses, or appeals filed in conne,ction with this
property that'would relate 'or affect its use forthe:specific purpose of this application? If yes, give date and docket
number, decision rendered and pertinent explanation.
SU-49-99 & V~50-99
15) Has work for which this application is, bE;ling filed alreaqy started;? If answer is yes, give detajls!
Building Permit Number: 1291. 99 Issued 11116/99 Note~ c.onstructi on is compl ete
Builder: Sull ivan Construction
16) If proposed appeal is granted.. when will the worb~oi1Jmence?
SDr;nQ 2003
17) If the proposed variance is granted, Who will op'erate, and/or use th.e proposed improvement for which this
application has. been filed?
Glendale PartnerS
NOTE:
LEGAL NOTICE shall be published,ln the Noblesville DailvLedqer a MANOATORy,twenty-five (25) days prior to
the publ.ichearing date. The certified "Proof of Publication" affioavit for the newspaper must be available, for inspect,ion the
l1i~ht oftt}ehearing.
LEGAL, t'JOTICE to all adjoining and abuftipg property owners is also MANDATQRY;'two'methods of notice. are
recornmen.rjed:.
1}CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED sent to a.djoining property owners, (The white repeipt
should be stamped by the Post Office atleasttwenty-five (2q) days prior to th8 public hearing date.)
Page:2 of e - Develapmenl~1i Standards Variance ApplicatIOn
~ ~ . '<#-- ,
(.)\
Q
~* See attached Sheet
CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CARMEL,INDIANA
DocketNo..:
Pet!tioQer:
FINDINGS OF FACT . DEVELOPMENT ALSTAN DARDS VARIANCE.
1. The C3Pproval of this variance will not be inJurious to the public health, safety, morals and g,eneral welfare of the
community because:
.2. The use and valuE! of the areaadjacenf to the property included in the variance will not qeaffected ina
substantially adVerse manner because:
3. The strict application ofthe terms of the Zoning'Qrdinance to tbe prgperty will re;;ult irl practical difficulties in the
use ,of the. property be'cause:.. .
DECISION
I'T IS.THEREFORE .the decision oftbe Carh;leIJC!ay Board of ZaRing Appealsthat Developrnental Standards Variance
Docket No; is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this
Board, which are inc9rporate.d herein by reference and made a part hereot
Adopted this
day of
,20
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
SECRETARY, Carmel/GIC3y Board of Zonih"g Appea'is
Conditions of tne Board are listedoo the back. (petitioner or his representative to sign).
S :\ca rmelclaylanduser,egs\checklisl\devslandapp
'Revised 10f1712000
Page s."rs -- Devel"pmenlal.Slandards Variance.Application
u
u
FINDING OF FACTS-DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE
1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the comrnunjty because:
Landscapint! in 2eneral is considered to have a positive impact on the
community, The focus of this variance requestis to eliminate the rear
foundation plantin2s on the east side oftbe existin2 buildin2_
Alternate landscapin2 is proposed that will provide a superior
screeniD!! effect for the east buildioe: elevation. and therefore, provide
an increase in aesthetic benefit for the community, The alternate
landscapin2 provided bv obtainiDe: the variance will improve the
morals and 2eneral welfare of the community. and will not ne2ativelv
impact public health or safety.
2.) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance
will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because:
The screenin2 provided by the alternate. plan is more comprehensive
than landscapin!!compliant with the ordinance. Thoue:h the alternate
plan is not in direct accordance with the 421 Overlay Zone Ordinance.
it fulfills the intent of the ree:ulations.
3.) The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will
result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because:
The site was inadvertently constructed with no planti"!! beds on the
east building face. It will be impractical to remove the existin2
pavement to install the curbine: to create fou"dation-plantin!! beds.
Additionally. the survivability of the alternative landscapin2 will be
improved due to better access to su"lil!ht. water. and soil.
7
C1.
<(
:2:
z
o
-
~
-0-
o
-I
~
DEC-05-2002 rrHU 12: 23 PM OMEL COMMUN I TY SVCS
FAX NO, 3~571 2426
p, 02
CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
.nJL Y 28, 1999
The regularly scheduled meeting of July 26, 1999 of the Cannell Clay Board of Zoning
Appeals reconvened on Wednesday, July 28, 1999. The meeting was called to order with
the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City
Ball~ Carmel, Indiana,
Members present were: Earlene Plavchak; Jim Quinn~ Pat Rice; Charles Weinkauf; and
Tom Yedlick.
John Molitor reported that the meeting did not require additional public notice, inasmuch
as the meeting was reconvened to this evening and there were no changes in the Agenda.
Terry Jones reported that items lh., 2h., 3h., 4,; and 5h., were tabled to the August BZA
meeting; 9h. and lOb. were requested to be tabled by the petitioner. Items 12h" 13h.,
14h., Max & Erma's, was tabled to August. Item ISh., Merrill Lynch sign at Parkwood
Building No.5, has been withdrawn by the Department.
8h Lakes at Bazeldell Clubhouse (SU-37-99)
James Quinn moved to :TABLE this item for an indefinite period oftime, APPROVED
4 in favor, Pat Rice opposed.
Pat Rice moved to liftthis item from the table, The motion died for lack of a second and
the item remains tabled.
There was discussion regarding cell towers listed on the Agenda, including those
originally tabled to the August meeting, with the exception of the two Ameritech Towers.
By unanimous consent of the Board. the following items were Tabled for a minimum
period of 60 days~ Iterns 6h, and 7h.j (Omnipcint Telecommunications Tower SE-35-99
and, V-36~99), Items 3h, 4h. and 51\ (Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower SE-32-99,
V.33-99 and V-34-99;) and Items 9h. and 10h" Sprint Tower (SE~39-99 and V-40-99),
originally tabled for the August meeting.
Steve Engelking, Director of the Department of Community Services, publicly assured
the applicants and all telecommunications providers that while the Department will move
forward, the providers and public will also be kept in the loop and included in
deliberations. ' '
Charles Weinkauf commented that a logical approach seemed to be forming a study
committee to look at the issue of cell towers and possible site locations-
s ;minutes\'SZA \bza1999ju 12 8
DEC-05-2002 THU 12:23 PM~RMEL COMMUNITY SVCS
FAX NO. c:3 571 2426
p, 03
Andy Crook, 2288 West 1361h Street, commented that he did not have a solution to the
placement of the towers, but ~ome thought should be given to how to assess the land
valuation
John Shea, 13886 Golden Saddle Court, asked if the process of becoming better informed
would rely on. information from the providers Dr from an independent source.
Note: Chuck Weinkauf commented that the burden ofprooflies with the petitioner.
Neither the Board nor the Department has the resourceS available for independent
evaluation
Muriel Stanton, Saddlecreek Subdivision, asked for a concrete definition of a uhardship."
Tim Haley~site acquisition and zoning manger for Omnipoint in the State ofIndiana,
commented that Omnipoint has worked closely with BZA Boards and citiz.ens to resolve
issues connected with the Cell Towers and answer questions from the public.
H. Public Hearing:
Ilh. Inlow Pond (SU-41-99)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to relocate and make improvements to the
channel of Clay Creek and to provide a small retention pond on a 15.8 acre
residential property. The site is located southwest ofthe intersection of 116lb
Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S~ 1 /Residence.
Filed by Richard Smikle.
Doug Churc~attorney witb Church, Church, Hittle & Antrim, 938 COrIDor Street,
Noblesville, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also present was
Scott Bordenet, project engineer. The Agenda incorrectly recites the location oftbe
proposed pond; the site is located on the southeast of the intersection of 116th Street and
Ditch Road.
1'he petitioner is proposing to relocate and make improvements to the channel of Clay
Creek and als.o provide a small retention pond on the 15.8 acre tract. The new channel
length will be approximately 1100 feet. Four, wooden deck foot bridges will be
constructed acrOSS the creek Clearing of trees will be kept at an absolute minimum and
all disturbed areas will.be seeded following construction,
The proposed relocation and improvements to the channel will help control on-site
erosion and alleviate dowustream flooding. The existing channel of Clay Creek currently
undercuts 116tl! Street on the north side of the property. The water flow often backs up
near Ditch Road during heavy rain. The proposed improvements will improve stream
conveyance properties and provide on-site detention/retention, The re~channeled Creek
will reduce flooding and eliminate erosion along 1 16th Street. The improvements are not
expected to impact adjacent property owners. All construction will remain on~site.
s:minutes\BZA\bza1999ju 128
2
;'
DEC-05-2002 THU 12:24 PM~MEL COMMUNITY SVCS
FAX NO, U 571 2426
P. 04
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
development; no one appeared,
Terry Jones reported for tbe Department that there were some concerns expressed at the
Technical Advisory Committee by John South ofthe County Soil and Water
Conservation. There is consideration for increas.ing the velocity of the flow at the
completion of the channel improvements_ At this point, John South's concerns have been
addressed and the only open items are approvals from IDEM and DNR. The Department
is recommending approval subject to the approvals from IDEM and DNR.
The public hearing on Docket No. SU-41-99, Inlow Pond, was then closed.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of Docket No. SU-41~99, subject to approvals from
IDEM and DNR.
Jim Quinn asked for clarification on the pond--ifit was detention'or retention.
Scott Bordenet, 215 Stepin Court, Hamilton County, responded that the pond is designed
to hold water at a low level and during storm events~ the elevation will increase and water
will be stored and released at a slower rate to improve channel conveyance,
Jim Quinn also asked if the petitioner would be willing to commit to return the site to its
original condition if construction qf tbe channel should result in ~xtensive, downstream
erasion problems. Mr. Church responded that if the channel works as intended, there is
no potentiaL ha:nn downstream because the outfall will be. controlled within the detention!
retention pond~ downstream, the creek does not change. Over time, tbe creek through
this area has cut different channels. Placing the new channel will solidify a channel that
will carry the volume of water that normally flows through the area. The petitioner is not
prepared to offer a covenant that the channel will work but is relying upon engineers that
have made certain assertions.
Scott Bordenet confIrmed that the pond \Vill store water and release at a. slower rate; the
water level will beat a two year flood event,
Pat Rice amended her motion for approval~ subject to IDEM and DNR approvals, to
additionally provide that the proposed construction of the channel will not increase the
velocity Dr the volume of the downstream flow; if it should, the petitioner will correct.
APPROVED 5~O.
12h. Max and Erma's 0'-42-99)
Tabled to the August meeting
13h. Max and Erma's (V-43-99)
Tabled to the August meeting
s:minutes\BZA \bz:a1999ju 128
3
;-
DEC-05-2002 THU 12:24 PMc::JMEL COMMUNITY SVCS
FAX NO, [) 571 2426
p, 05
14h. Max a.nd Erma's (V..44-99)
Tabled to the AUgLlst meeting
ISh, Merrill Lynch Sign, Parkwood Building 5 (V-45~99)
Withdrawn by the Department of Community Se!llices
16h. Telnmon Sign (V-46-99)
Tabled to the August meeting due to petitioner1s failure to appear
NOTE: Items 17h and ISh were heard together
17h. Bennett Technology Park Sign (V-4i-99)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7,01-4(1) of
the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow for a Bennett Farms Ap.artment
identification sign within the proposed integrated monument sign for Bennett
Technology Park. The site is located at 11200 Michigan Road. The site is zoned
B~3lBusiness and is located within the U.S. Highway 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by ZeffWeiss ofIce Miller Donadio & Ryan,
18h. Bennett TechnolOgy Park Sign (V-48-99)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25. 7.02-1 1 (c,d,h)
of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the maximum sign area to be 70
square feet total where only 30 square feet is allowed; to allow the sign height to
be nine feet where six feet is aUowed; and to allow external soft tube illumination
where only internal or completely shielded illumination is allowed. The site is
located a.t 11200 :Michigan Road, The site is zoned B-3/Business and within the
U.S. Highway 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by ZeffWeiss ofIce :Miller Donadio & Ryan.
Tim Oachs, attorney with Ice Miller Donadio & Ryan appeared before the Board
representing the applicant, Michigan Road Partners LLC. contract purchaser. The
petitioner has received approval for the construction of an apartment community from
Boone County, The reason for the appearance before the Cannel Plan Commission is
that the sign is located within the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. The petitioner feels that
tbe sign.is necessary for competitive purposes and for safety' purposes to pinpoint the
location.
The specific sign is an integrated sign that incorporates the apartment community and the
technology park. The dimensions of the sign are 7 1/2 feet at its highest point; the
Bennett Farms Apartments sign is approximately 8 1/2 feet v,,-ide and the Technology
Park sign is approximately 5 feet wide. The sign will be consistent with the architectural
Iltyle of the apartment community as approved by the Town ofZionsville. The
development fronts on Michigan Road and is adjacent to a commercial use aCroSS the
5 : minutes\EZA \bza 1999j1112.8
4
: ;
DEC-05-2002 THU 12:24 PMC::;MEL COMMUNITY SVCS
FAX NO, 3-17,571 2426
U
p, 06
street that is an approved. industrial park for the Town of Zionsville. It is believed that
the use and va1ue of the adjacent area will not be impacted. The strict application in the
termS of the zoning ordinance result in practical difficulties because of the setback from
Michigan Road. The petitioner needs the visibility on Michigan Roa.d and signage is
vita! to the success of the development.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
signage; no one appeared, .
Terry Jones reported for the Department that a variance for the off-premise sign would be
needed. If the sign can fit within the confines ofthe ordinance, the signage for the
apartments could be located in conjunction with the Technology Park as an off-premise
sign. Possibly, the increase in size and height is the result of an additional sign in the
same location, The Department would be in favor of one sign, serving twO purposes, in
one location.
There was much "discussion regarding one off-premise sign containing two identification
signs, one for Bennett Technology Park and one for Bennett Farms Apartments.
Earlene Plavchak asked if an off-premise sign was strictly prohibited under the Carmel
Sign Ordinance. Terry Jones responded in the positive; however, the petitioner is
allowed to seek a variance under the Statute.
Torn YedHck moved for the approval ofV..47-99.
The public hearing was then closed.
MI. Quinn took ex.ception to V~riance V-47~99 because he felt it waS a speech issue
There was further discussion prompted by Mr, Quinn's comments. "
Earlene Plavc-hak withdrew her second; Tom Yediick wiithdrew his motion for approval
ofV-4'7-99.
Tom Yedlick then moved to approve a variance from section 25. 7.01~4(l) to allow an off
premise sign fat Bennett Farms Apartments, V-47-99. APPROVED by a show of hands
4 in favor, Jim Quinn opposed.
There was much discussion as to the request for Variance 48-99.
T1m Oac:hs explained that the request for the Bennett Tecbnolgy Park Sign variance of
Section 25.7.02-11(c,d;h) is to allow a total increase in the maximum sign area to 63
square feet where only 30 square feet is allowed, and to allow the sign height to be 7.5
feet where six feet is allowed. The external soft tube iIlumination is permitted. provided
that soft tube iJlumination is shielded.
s~minu.tes\BZA \bza 1999jul2S
5
DEC-05-2D02 THU 12:25 PM~MEL COMMUNITY SVCS
FAX NO. 317 571 2426
U
Terry Jones interjected that during the Department's review of the petitioner's request, the
sign was viewed by the Department as an integrated sign, i,e. one sign that had two
messages, One message had something to do with something other than the property in
which it was being located; the second issue was the size, height and illumination of the
complete, single sign, not two signs as considered by the previous motion.
NOTE: At this point, the Board took a 5 minute recess at Mr. Molitor's request.
Mr, Oach's reiterated the petitioner's request for a variance to increase the maximum size
of the sign from 3D square feet to 63 square feet, allowing the two signs to be integrated,
and signage height is requested to be 7.5 feet where six feet is al1owed. The petitioner is
willing to commit that these signs be integrated and restricted in dimension to that which
was submitted, and further, that Bermett Technology Park and Bennett Farms Apartments
would be the only users advertised on the sign.
Mr. Weinkauf asked that the petitioner commit to not exceeding the ,allowable square
footage or height of the sign. Mr. Molitor stated that since written Findings of Fact had
not yet been adopted) the dimensions of the allowed sign are agreed tope,no larger than
the sign presented by the petitioner.
Earlene Plavchak asked for clarification of the request for externaL soft tube illumination;
Mr. Jones responded that this was a review under the US 421 Overlay Ordinance. The
petitioner committed to landscapin'g around the light fi;<tUre so that it is not clearly
visible. The petition also goes before the Plan Commission for ADLS review and the
illu.mination will be looked at again, however, the petitioner was willing to commit to a
point one foot candle,
Jim Quinn suggested that the pMf.l,Se regarding the shielding of light be stricken from the
petititmerts request The petitioner stated his willingness to \Vithdraw this part of the
request.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of the Bennett Technology Park Sign, (V~48-99) as
amended to provide that the 63 square foot total previously approved shall include the
square footage. of the apartment sign already granted; the 7,5 foot height variance would
pertain only to the Technology Park portion ofthe sign. APPROVED 4 in favor, Jim
Quinn opposed,
19h. West Carmel Center (SU-49-99)
Petitioner seeks a Special Use approval to construct a retail shopping and service
center including a jewelry store. The site is located at the soutbwest corner of
West 106m Street and U.S. Highway 421. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is
within the u.s. Highway 421 Overlay Zone,
Filed by Jamie Poczekay of American Consulting Engineers,
s:minutes\l3ZA\bza1999jI.l-128
P. 07
6
~
DEC-05-2002 THU 12:25 PM~MEL COMMUNITY SVCS
FAX NO, 317 571 2426
U
p, 08
Kevin McKasson, 9864 Summerlakes Drive, of Glendale Partners appeared before the
Board along with April Hensley of Leach, Hensley Architects. Jamie Poczekay is on
vacation this week.
The petitioner has appeared before the Special Study Committee of the Plan Commission
and received ADLS approval for the first phase of a retail project at l06th Street and
Michigan Road. The project will consist of three retail buildings- The petitioner is
requesting that this site be approved for retail uses as provided in the Ordinance,
including a jewelry store,
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
development; nO one appeared.
Terry Jones reponed that the Department has no issues with this petition, and appro va] is
recommended.
Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of West Carmel Center, SU-49~99.
APPROVED 5~O.
20h. West Carmel Center (V-50-99)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 23C,9 Qfthe
Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance which sates that buildings with a continuous
fac;ade of90 feet or greater width be designed with offsets not less than eight feet
deep- Petitioner requests that these building offsets not be required. The site is
located at the Bouthwest comer of West l06th Street and U.S, Highway 421. The
site is zoned B~3lBUsiness and is within the U.S. Highway 42] Overlay Zone.
Filed by Jamie Poczekay of American Consulting Engineers.
Kevin McKasson of Glendale Partners appeared before the Board requesting a variance
in the 421 Overlay requirements requiring building fa9ade setbacks of 8 feet. The
Carmel Plan Commission spent many months fine tuning tbe Ordinance to protect the
Michigan Road corridor and to provide for enhanced'development procedures, The
petitioner meets all requirements with the exception of the 8 foot setbacks required in a
fa~ade" It is believed that the intention of the provision was to prohibit a long, square
building without any character.
The proposed building provides several architectural features that break up the front of
the building. The building is all brick with a stucco sign front and a simulated, asbestos
roof that will look like shi.te. All sides of the building are of the brick material; all utility
units are screened from the public. It is the petitioner!s belief that all requirements of the
Ordinance have been met Vv'ith the submitted design.
Members ofthe public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
developmt;lnt~ no one appeared,
s:rninutes\BZA\bza1999jul28
']
DEC-05-2002 THU 12:25 PM r^~MEL COMMUNITY SVCS
U
FAX NO. 317 571 2426
U
Terry Jones concurred with Mr. McKassonis representation of the 421 Overlay Zone
Requ_irements. Pat Rice was on the Plan Commission committee that drafted the
amendments to the 421 Overlay requirements. There was a good deal of discussion at
that time, and severa,l members' of the Committee expressed that the outcome of the
amendment was not what the Committee intended. The Committee would like to revisit
this and make another amendment. The Department is recommending approval at this
time,
Pat Rice moved for the approval of West Carmel Center V-50-99.
Jim Quinn noted that the Overlay Requirements do not describe the offsets--they could be
vertical. Mr. Quinn urged the Board to write a letter to the City Council to change the
Overl ay Requirements.
The public hearing was then closed,
West Carmel Center (V~50-99) was APPROVED 5-0,
21h. Perkins Variance (V-51r99)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of the Carmel/Clay Zoning
Ordinance to reduce the 60 foot building line setback The site is located
southeast of the intersection of Woodlawn Drive and Orchard Park Drive,
Filed by Paul Shea of Paul Shea Builders Inc.
Paul Shea of Paul Shea Builders, 1015 Dswego Road, Cannel, appeared before the Board
requesting a reduction in the 60 foot building line setback to 44 feet. Virgil and Katheryn
Perkins were also in attendance. Mr. Shea stated that he will be acting as contractor for
lYfr. and Mrs. Perkins. The petitioner is requesting a reduction in the building setback
line in order to add a two-car garage to the front of his home.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed
addition; no one appeared.
Terry Jones of the Department pointed out that the underlying zoning is S~2 and has a.
setback requirement 005 feet. At the time it was platted, the developers platted this
particular residence with a setback of 60 feet. Another section ofthe zoning ordinance
requires that a setbn.ckin excess of the required. shall be the setback requirement. The
proposed construction encroaches only into the 11 extra II setb!\.Ck set forth by the
development.
The public hearing was then closed.
James Quinn moved for the approval of the Perkins Variance (V-51-99).
Mr. Shea stated that he had spoken with the neighbors and adjacent property owners.
There was no opposition to the proposed cons.truction.
5~minute5\]3ZA \bz.a1999ju12S
P. 09
8
"
DEC-05-2002 THU 12:26 PMc:JRMEL COMMUNITY SVCS
FAX NO. ~17 571 2426
U
P. 10
Jim Quinn asked if the Board had any say in the Subdivision covenants and whether or
not the proposed construction was in violation of the Subdivision covenantS.
John Molitor responded that whatever the CQvenants require in the way of setbacks are
binding upon the Q\Vl1erS unless they get all property ownerls consent. It should not be a
concern to the Board. The Board does not have the right to infringe upon contracts
entered into by private parties. The other owners in the Subdivision may still have rights
under the homeowners covenants and restrictions, nO matter what the Board does.
Mr. Quinn suggested that the petitioner check in the homeowners covenants to see if the
encroachment in the setback is permitted,
Mr, Quinn1s motion for approval was APPROVED 4 in favor, Tom Yedlick opposed.
There being no further business to come berore the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
9:50 PM. .
~" ~~ ~ c.
I_~t~_ ",.. ~~ '
Charles W. Weiokauf:~ident
. () /
'~./t'2.11<i/17~~ . ~.~ ~~)_., I.~~//
R ana Hancock, Secretary
s:minutes\BZA\b~a1999ju128
9