HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 06-23-08
u
u
~
City of Carmel
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 23, 2008
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Crumel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday,
June 23, 2008, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Cmmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members in attendance were Kent Broach, Leo Dierckman, James Hawkins, Madeleine Torres, and
Alternate Alan Potasnik, thereby establishing a quorum. Christine Barton-Holmes and Rachel Boone
represented the Department of CommWlity Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2008 meeJing as submitted. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0, with Mr. Potasnik abstaining.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave theitel1ls that were being tabled: Items 19-20h, Prailie Trace Softball Complex
until July 28; Item 21 h, Mueller Property South Underground Limestone Operation until July 17 Special
Meeting; Itemsl-2i, Monon & Main, Units 3A, 3D, & 4F and Items 3-9i, Circle K1Shell until July 28.
Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. With regard to the pending litigation, two ofthe Board members did
conduct a site visit earlier in the day regarding the operations. Two more of the members will visit the site
on Thursday. An Executive Session has not been scheduled before the Special Meeting on July 17. The
Petitioner, Martin Marietta, has given Public Notice to the neighboring property owners so that the
meeting can go forward on July 17. If any of the Board members have questions regarding this issue, they
can contact Mr. Molitor or My. Babb. With respect to this meeting's agenda, in order to keep as many
Board members in participation as possible, he recommended re-ordering the agenda. He suggested
moving Items 18h, Cherry Tree Softball Complex, and 1-4i, Stout Shoes Buildings, to the beginning of
the Public Hearings.
Mr. Dierckman moved to adjust the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and
APPROVED 5-0.
Mr. Hawkins acknowledged the passing of former BZA Board member, Chuck Weinkauf, with a
moment of silence. Mr.. Weinkauf was dedicated to the City and had made a significant contribution
to Cannel.
H. Public Hearing:
ISh. Cherry Tree Softball Complex
The applicant seeks the fo1lawing special use amendment approval:
Docket No. 08050036 Appendix A, Use Table Amendment of existing special use
The site is located at 13989 Hazel De1l Parkway and is zoned S lISingle-Family Residential.
Filed by William E. Payne, AlA of Fanning/Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools.
Page 1 of 22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
Representing the Petitioner: Ann O'Hara, attorney with Church Church Hittle & Antrim. The layout
was shown of the current softball facility built in 1989. They are requesting to amend their Special Use
to provide for the construction of improvements and enhancements for the facility. The site plan of the
improvements was shown. One ofthe goals is to move the home plate area away from the adjacent
surrounding neighborhood. They will be adding some illumination and speakers, but they will not be
as intrusive to the surrounding neighborhood. These improvements are necessary because the girls'
softball facilities have been lacking. It is very important for the school district to accomplish these
improvements. The School Board approved these improvements at their May meeting. Also in
attendance were Roger McMichael and Ron Farrand from the school district.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition.
Favorable:
Michael McGinley, President Carmel Dad's Club, 5459 E. 13151 Street. Canllel Dad's Club is 100
percent in support of this project. They believe this facility will be excellent after the improvements. It
will be something to be proud of and address the badly needed equality of sports for boys' baseball and
girls' softball.
Brian Poindexter, 13921 Wildcat Drive, General Commissioner for the Carmel Dad's Club Softball
program. He urged the Board to pass this plan which had already received approval of the School
Board. It will enhance the ability to provide athletic activities for young giTls in the Carmel Dad's Club
as well as the high school team (members and coach in the audience). He lives across the street from
this complex. He felt the School Board had done their due diligence in trying to minimize the impact
of this facility on the neighbors. He felt once the facility was completed the adjacent neighbors would
also welcome it~
u
u
Unfavorable-Organized:
Tara Ascioti, 14156 Skylark Court, parent of a Cherry Tree Elementary student. Also present was Joe
Loomis, 14349 Avian Way, a la-year Carmel resident. They represented a mix of residents who
opposed the proposed expansion ofthe softball complex. They represented 274 residents who signed
the petition, mostly parents of Cherry Tree students; 30 residents from the second petition who reside
along the perimeter of the property; and others who will be living with the results of this decision.
Item #7 on the Petitioner's application states this will be a renovation of the existing softball complex.
The drawings submitted contradict the point that this is a renovation. It is a huge expansion. She felt
the Petitioner's Findings of Fact should be challenged on each oftheir five points. Her group had a
response for each point and suggestion.s for revisions for an acceptable renovation.
Item #1 physical suitability ofthepremises: A photo was shown of the amount of property that
is currently unusable by the students. A second photo indicated the amount of property that will be
further lost behind the 8-foot fencing to which the students and community will not have free
access. The existing use will change and it will change by significantly expanding the amount of
property controlled by the Carmel High School program and the Carmel Dad's Club program.
This reduces the amount of property available for play areas by both the elementary students and
the neighborhood. Cherry Tree Elementary is not physically suited to perform both its primary use U
and the proposed expanded special use on the site. The expansion to three or four fenced fields is /. -
not a renovation. The primary play area located on the two eastern fields between the playgrounds
will be taken away from the elementary students and the community with this proposal. They
suggested the School Board consider apotentially acceptable renovation rather than the proposed
expansion. They proposed an upgrade including a possible re-orientation of the current two fenced
Page 2 of 22
u
u
u
Cam1el Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23,2008
fields along the western perimeter of the property. This meets the definition of a renovation and
protects the eastern greenspace for the primary use by the school.
Item #2 cost benefit to the community: The Petitioner has worked to modernize the lighting and
sound systems. The group appreciated that effort, but the issue is not about lights and sound. The
5000 square feet, two-story structure proposed will sit in the middle of the open greenspace on the
property. The current building sits on the western perimeter of the property and is adjacent to the
neighborhood tennis courts, swinuning pool and parking lot. Currently the majority of residents do
not look out their window and see the structure. The expanded building would be visible to more
properties. They felt it wOllold have a negative impact on communit'y property values. The
proposal's cost of $2.5 million will result in a loss of publicly accessible softball fields and
greenspace by the students and the community, all in an effort to situate the new concession stand
in the middle of the fbur fields. They suggested building the new structure in the location of the
current one and keeping the middle of the property unfenced for elementary school use.
Item #3 compatibility with existing uses: The primary use of this property is for an elementary
school and not a high-intensity, high-use sports complex. Currently students and community
residents use the two eastern fields that will be replaced by the competitive fields. It is unrealistic
to think that the new fenced fields will be used by teachers supervising up to 100 students per
recess period. They suggested upgrading the two western fields to state-of-the art fields, eliminate
the plans for the eastern field and restrict any future competitive fenced eastern field. The group's
proposed renovation kept the property immediately adjacent to the school's main western entrance
and exit available to the students and the community. Such a renovation would require permanent
restrictions that only the two western fields are fenced, lit and amplified. The use of the two
western fields would be permanently restricted to never occur before 9:30 .A1v1 or after 8 :00 PM to
be compatible with existing residential uses.
Joe Loomis continued the presentation at this point. His property is on the northern boundary ofthe
elementary school.
Item #4 adequacy of storm drainage and safety: The current above-ground detention basin is
not used by the school because it is often too wet and the grade is too steep. It is used by Carmel
Dad's Club when it is dry. It cannot really be counted as greenspace for the school. The proposal
then leaves very little greenspace that is usable by the children. His group had mentioned in their
packet that the current detention basin already overflows onto adjoining properties on the northern
side. The Petitioner has not submitted a study about increased storm drainage in the area and any
improvements that are planned.
Item #5 vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises: This is the greatest
concern. Both the current and proposed access roads are unacceptable and dangerous. They pose a
safety risk that must be addressed. Maybe in 1990 the limited use ofth]s elementary school, as a
high school facility with ten home games a year and no multi-team tournaments sponsored by the
high school or Dad's Club, would permit such a dangerous condition for an emergency access
road immediately adjacent to a children's playground on the north. The Petitioner is now
proposing a second access road to be installed through the middle of the main south student play
area and next to the south playground. The proposal allows for over 1000 people on the school
campus at the same time. If this expansion is accepted, there is much more likelihood that
emergency vehicles will be req uired than they were 18 years ago. Short of moving the expanded
complex to another site, which they would welcome, they do not have a proposed solution to this
critical problem and the Petitioner has not presented one. They suggested that parking and traffic
studies needed to be conducted so they would know the impact of the vehicular and pedestrian
Page 3 of 22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
traffic. The campus will now become a major sports complex and will not continue unchanged as
the Petitioner contended. The current situation is unacceptable and the expansion plan exceeds the
primary use of the site as a neighborhood elementary school. It also exceeds the expectation of an
S-l residential neighborhood. They do not know the traffic impact. The study received from the
Petitioner c1early'shows that the number one user of the campus is the Carmel Dad',s Club; the
number two user is the high school; and the number three user is the elementary school. He felt
this was the opposite of how the campus should be' prioritized. These are three different entities
and the Carmel Dad's Club is not the Petitioner. The BZA is in a special position to require this
study and guarantee that the elementary school will always be the primary user. He felt the
vehicular/pedestrian traffic study shouJd be conducted when the elementary school is in session
and the high school and Dad's Club softball programs are in season. They asked for restrictions
that do not exceed the current parking capacity and the Petitioner not be permitted to expand
parking as a solution. They did not want the limited greenspace covered with parking.
The group supported Carmel Dad's Club and girls' softball on all levels. They would even support an
expanded complex for the girls like the one shown at Ben Davis High School. However, the Ben Davis
complex is not in the middle of a residential neighborhood and is not co-located on an elementary
school campus. They do not oppose the expansion, they oppose the location. They felt this was a
precedent-setting matter. Cherry Tree has had 18 years of incremental, unregulated minor expansions.
Marcia Roberts, 5307 Woodfield Drive South, Co-President Cherry Tree PTO. She was speaking on
behalf of the current PTO Executive Board and last year's PTO Executive Board. She felt she spoke
for over 600 elementary students who attend Cherry Tree. The softball complex affects this group. The
current Cherry Tree teachers responded that the current greenspace is used everyday during recess by
hundreds of children. If the complex is approved, it will be fenced off and become offlimits. Initially
the Administration was going to add an lindetgrOlmd tank to alleviate the drainage problem in the
northwest comer of the property. This would then be accessible for students during recess. But the tank
was too expensive and that option and that. green space are no longer on the table. The school
administration states some other elementary schools do not have much greenspace. That is unfortunate,
but the schools should not be taken down to the lowest common denominator in terms of the area for
children to play. They would not do that with regards to academics and they should not do that with
school grounds. It is not just parents and neighbors who are concerned about the expansion of the
softball complex. Cherry Tree students of all ages took it upon themselves to start a petition against the
softball complex. proposaL They obtained over300 signatures from fellow students. Students have
written letters to the School Board; they have attended School Board meetings; and they have written
reports on this topic for classroom assignments because they are upset about the negative impact this
proposal will have on all Cherry Tree students. Please remember first and foremost that this is an
elementary school. They appreciate the upgrades to the playgrounds, but they are still concerned with
the loss of greenspace and the potential safety issues. It is true that the softball facilities need to be
improved, but they did not feel placing the high school fields at the back door of the elementary school
was the right thing to do.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Rebuttal:
Ms. O'Hara appreciated the remonstrators' conunents and concerns. The proposed site plan was
reviewed and analyzed by the School Board. The School Board heard the comments from the PTO and
the students. In evaluating their decision, they felt it was most prudent for the school district to use
existing facilities and to improve those facilities. With the regards to the greenspace, some of the area
Page 4 of 22
u
u
u
L
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
will be used for construction. The greenspace at Cherry Tree is more than any other elementary school
in the Carmel school district. The school district is committed to improve the playground facilities at
the school so that they are equal to the existing playground facilities at the other elementary schools.
From the packet, the school district, along with the Cannel Dad's Club, has made a commitment for a
schedule in tenns of hours of usage of the facility. Those hours will remain the same unless changed
by the School Board. Unlike other developers, the School Board does not have the opportunity for
location. They have to look at long-range plans and this was the designated area forthe softball
complex. They have approved the site plan. They have reviewed the issue and determined this is the
best place for this improvement, as opposed to starting over at a new location. This is not an
expansion, but an improvement of the existing facility. The use as a softball complex will continue.
This is not a Special Use application, but an Amended Special Use application. This use has been in
place since 1989. This is not a new use for this particular land. With regards to drainage issues, the
Petitioner plans to discuss these conCerns with City Engineering. The Petitioner needs the BZA
approval to go forward with the improvements in accordance with City standards.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The Department had provided some Google Earth
maps of the existing Cherry Tree facility, the existing Ben Davis facility, and some photographs of
both facilities for comparison. The Department took a long hard look at this request to see if it merited
going before the BZA Board or if it was minor enough for the Director's decision. The Department
does consider it to be a reconstruction of the fields. The use and facilities are already there. The fields
are proposed to be re-configured so that home plate faces inward and away from the residential areas.
The outfields are facing toward the residential areas. Typically home plate is the noisiest part of the
field. Currently the lighting and loud speakers on the site use outdated technology. There is a lot of
noise and light spillage into the surrolU1ding residential areas. The technology proposed to be used,
which is similar to the Ben Davis facility, would almost eliminate light spillage to surrounding areas.
She believed the Board had a map indicating how the light going off the property lines would affect
mainly the swimming pool and tennis court areas and would be limited mainly to the northern fields.
As part of the research, the Department went to the Ben Davis fields in the evening when the fields
were lit. The light was pretty much limited to the property line. There was no light spillage with the
new technology. It is also similar to the lighting on Michigan Road. From Marion County to Hamilton
County, the light pollution diminishes greatly. The new loudspeakers will cut down on the amount of
noise, which was one of the complaints. The Department recognizes that the proposed facility would
certainly be an improvement over the existing facility. It would benefit the community as a whole, but
care should be taken so that impacts from the use do not overly impact the surrounding residential
areas with regard to the noise, light and traffic. The Department believes the new speaker and lighting
systems will make the site more accommodating toward the surrounding residential areas. The
schedule submitted indicates only two sununer tournanlents held for the school and that most games
would end by 8:30 PM in the spring and 9:00 PM in the summer. With Daylight Savings Time, it is
unlikely the lighting would need to be used very often. The Department recognized that drainage is a
current concern. With the addition of hard surfaces, the Department of Community Services and the
Department of Engineering will continue to work with the school. Underground detention is extremely
expensive, sothey are encouraging the Petitioner to look at alternatives such as using a mixture of
porous pavers to help mitigate the additional hard surface and try to improve the overall drainage
situation. By law, they cannot make the drainage situation worse. It has to be at least the same, ifnot
better. The south parking area is proposed to be re-striped to increase the parking capacity. Currently
the lot is striped for buses, which presents some confusion for parking for the games. The Department
urged the School Board to look at any and all safety measures to protect the emergency access route
from any adjacent facilities that the schoo] children might be using. There will not be a lot of overlap
Page 5 of 22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23,2008
between the use of the school and the ball games. The Department recommended positive
consideration.
Mr. Dierckman asked to see the schedule indicating the lighting and sound.
u
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated it should have been included in the packet. Ifnot, she did have a copy in
the file.
Mr. Hawkins asked for an explanation of the sound level diagram.
Bill Payne, Fanning Howey Associates, architect for the proj ecl. Two diagrams were included in the
packet. The first was an analysis on their part of what they believed to be the current performance of
the loudspeaker system on the varsity diamond which is located adjacent to the pool and community
area. The large bubbles illustrated sound levels in decibels emanating from the bullhorns mounted on
two poles. They are non-directional. They were originally installed with the intent ofcovering a broad
area and they do that very well. The most intense area is 80 decibels and extends over the west
property line to 70 decibels. Seventy decibels would be characterized as a passing vehicle at 65 miles
per hour or a lawnmower at ten feet. By locating the primary varsity dial110nd to the northeast, they
were attempting to move it away from the adjacent property line. The much improved sound system
would be directed toward the bleacher seating behind home plate. The sound would be more funneled.
At the property lines it would be about 50 decibels which would be considered evening in a suburb.
The sound system would only be located on the varsity field.
u
Mr. Potasnik asked about the greenspace that would be used during construction. Would it be used for
staging equipment during construction? He also wanted to know about the upgrading and expansion of
the existing playground.
Mr. Payne indicated the playground areas on the south, the north, and adjacent to the building on the
south side which is the primary and kindergarten areas will all be upgraded. They have designed the
play-ground facilities at most of the Carmel elementary schools so they are familiar with the scope and
types of equipment. The normal course ofactian is to work with staff on-site to develop a plan for age
appropriate equipment at each oftbe locations. That would part of the overall renovation. He thought
the greenspace areas being discussed were the two existing fields that were not fenced on the outfield
areas and an~ immediately west ofthe school. In the revised renovation plan, they would still maintain
no fencing on the southeast field. That would be available the same as the current field, only reversed
so that the backstop is toward the inward side. In a recent School Board meeting, the School Board
chose not to install the fence on the southwest field. That would enable the use of the southwest field,
with supervision, for school-age children during the day. During construction, they would erect a
substantial construction bairicade fence north to south that would barricade the entire western portion
of the property during the grading operation. They expect most of the grading operations to be
completed this Fall in time for seed and/or sod' to be installed'. When tbe seed is established in tbe
northern area, it could be used potentially by Fall 2009 or no later than Spring 2010.
Mrs. Torres felt the greenspace was a great loss for the elementary school and the Carmel Dad's Club U," ',.
does need improved facilities. Was there a way to accomplish both? Could tbe varsity field be moved
to the western field, eliminating that fence?
Page 6 of 22
L
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
Mr. Payne stated that Was the o.ptimum field orientation for normal softball or baseball activities, in a
non-illuminated situation. It also places the primary field as far away from the neighboring properties
as possible. The two southern fields will be available for access by school children.
Mrs. Torres stated the children have suqh a limited time for recess. By the time they got out to the
field, they would have to turn around and come back in for school. Keeping it closer to the school
would be the best for both parties. Was there any commitment for the grading to be completed before
school begins?
Mr. Payne stated there had been considerable discussion with the Administration and Staff on-site.
Most of the activities during recess go to the north rather than to the south area. The grading will
probably not be completed before school begi ns. The proj ect has been delayed working with the
School Board and the neighbors and then going through the BZA process. It is in their best interest to
have it completed as soon as possible to have seed established hopefully by the end of September.
Mrs. Torres felt the traffic and parking were a problem. Currently at Towne Meadow, even with the re-
striping, they are doubled parked down the middle as well as all around. Will the schedule be
staggered?
Mr. Payne stated there would be no expansion of the parking. Originally it was going to be expanded
with dual use with some of the playground. It was felt in conversation with local residents and parents
that would not be advantageous and was eliminated from the plan. Another possibility would be dual
striping on the bus lot on the south. He indicated the service drive that is accessed from the north
parking lot and goes around the playgrounds and back to the service building. It is unsafe and will be
eliminated from the plans. In the new plan, the only drive would be purely for emergency purposes.
Otherwise it would be used only for pedestrian access. There will no longer be an access drive on the
north portion of the site.
Ms. O'Hara stated the School District is committed to working with the City to insure there is
appropriate traffic flow during and after completion of the construction.
Mrs. Torres asked ifthe activity level would increase with the improvements.
Ms. O'Hara stated it was the intention that the activity levels remain the same. It is not the goal to
expand, but to provide improvements to better utilize the area for the students.
Mr. Dierckman asked if the greenspace in the fields north of the facility would remain accessible
during the school day.
Mr. Payne confirmed they would be accessible. They will be re-grading the area. They beli eve it will
be more usable after completion of the project. The swale will be made shaIlower with a more even
slope. The detention area in front of Prairie Trace is used for most ofthe school day activities. The gate
to the Avian Glen subdivision pool area will be re-installed in approximately the same location.
Mr. Broach agreed the re-configuration will help with light and sound, but the remonstrators stated this
was not about light and sound. They suggested an alternative plan to upgrade the facilities where they
are right now.
Page 7 of 22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
Mr. Payne stated there were multiple groups and different interests with regards to these fields. They
are convinced if they attempt to renovate the two existing fields, they would not be able to improve the
conditions for the residents immediately adjacent to the fields.
Ms. O'Hara confirmed the School Board had reviewed the various options. This is not a private
developer so it has gone through due diligence.
Mr. Broach understood there was no additional field. There was just the one additional field closest to
the school that would be fenced. Is that the one that is best for sight lines and the sun angles? What
would be the implications if the field was not fenced?
Mr. Payne confirmed that was the optimal orientation to the northeast. If it is not fenced, it Calmot be
used for high school competitive games.
Mr. Hawkins had walked the site and had questions about the drainage. Currently there is dirt and
debris on the sidewalk leading out from the school to the grandstand due to drainage issues. Can a
drainage plan be created after the construction on the fields has begun?
..
Mr. Payne stated a detailed drainage plan and study had been submitted to the Department of
Engineering that is currently under review. He felt it was a very effective design and they were
working through the details at this point.
Mr. Hawkins noticed this facility has slowly and continuously expanded. He had reservations about
any other uses or frequency of uses being approved by the Carmel Clay Board of Trustees. He wanted
to delete that statement. He felt it gave them the latitude to expand the scope oftrus project, the times,
etc. He would rather see the commitment made that the times outlined remain the same and are
consistent with current use and current users.
Roger McMichael, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs for Carmel Schools. The School
Board does not have plans to expand the use ofthe facility. The facility itself could not be expanded
without BZA approval. In the unknown future, if schedules change because of tournaments the School
Board would want to be able to respond to the changes and have some latitude. Only the School Board
would be able to make any changes in the uses because the Dad's Club would be happy to use the
facility more than they are currently using it. There have been numerous meetings with the School
Board, the parents and the community the last three months. This School Board does not want to tie the
hands of any future School Boards. From the current schedule of use there is not much more time
available. The intensity could increase with tournaments in the place of practice times.
Mr. Dierckman stated that was not acceptable. The BZA Board was responsible to the entire
community and regulating the property for the entire community. The School District's level of
interest relative to the whole community is slightly different from the level of interest ofthe BZA
Board. The School District can commit to this schedule to the BZA and then come to the BZA to
request any changes to the schedule.
Ms. O'Hara stated the Petitioner will commit to the schedule. Also any changes made to the facility
would need BZA approval.
Page 8 of 22
u
lJ
u
L
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
Mr. Hawkins asked about the gate with a lock to the Avian Glen subdivision. Who controls that lock if
people are parking over there -and getting to these fields?
Kevin Kultgen, President Avian Glen Homeowners Association. The lock has been vandalized again.
They have a regular budget item in the neighborhood dues for replacing the lock. It is continually
vandalized. They try to keep non-neighborhood cars out of the parking lot so that residents can use the
pool and tennis courts. It has become a very expensive item. It has been considered to block it
permanently, but they have a number of residents who walk their children to Cherry Tree.
Mr. Hawkins asked if the School Board would consider maintaining the gate.
Mr. Kultgen stated the Avian Glen HOA did not want that to happen.
Mr. McMichael did point out that with the current configuration of the fields and bleachers it was
tempting to park in the Avian Glen lot. Under the new configuration that will change. Any access to
the complex will be all the way around to the east entrance. That should discourage parking in that lot.
Mrs. Torres was still concerned with the greenspace and was having a hard time pushing this through
with the existing greenspace. Depending on time of day of the game, they will be facing the sun one
way or the other. Is there some sort of IHSAA regulation that would prevent the western field from
becoming the varsity field? Does it have to be oriented in a certain direction?
Mr. McMichael did not know. That is the recognized proper orientation.
Duane Cretin, 379 Mary Ellen Court. The lHSAA website states how they suggest and want the field
situated. He does not work for them, so he did not know about their rules and regulations.
Mr. Broach asked Mr. McMichael about the greenspace situation.
Mr. McMichael acknowledged the amount of greenspace would be reduced with the fencing of one
field. The School Board did take that into consideration. The last several schools have about an acre of
property for greenspace, including the two new schools on Shelbome Road. Cherry Tree has more than
that. Even though n:o one cates what someone else has, there continues to be adequate space for' the
elementary program. Each outfield is about an acre or a little more. There is area south of the south
parking lot that is contiguous with the south outfield that is about seven tenths of an acre. The retention
area is west of the north playground. That area is used by the children except on wet spring days. It is
certainly not ideal, but it is used forgreenspace. There is some additional greenspace to the east of that
playground which has the current access road. There is some additional greenspace across from that.
However, the greenspace next to the school has trees and is not open play area.
Mr. Dierckman pointed out that the south area is large enough for a soccer field.
Mr. Broach asked if there were any plans for additional landscape plans and buffering.
Mr. McMichael stated there would be some fill~in around the perimeter. The landscaping has been
there since the late 1980' 5, so it is pretty substantial. They have offered to work the neighbors for
specific locations for trees.
Page 9 of 22
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2.008
Mr. Dierckmanmovedto approve Docket No. 08050036 SUA, Cherry Tree Softball Complex with
the Commitment to adhere to the Cherry Tree Softball Use of Complex Schedule dated "final 5-13-
08". The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Molitor was asked to
coordinate with Ms. O'Hara to put the Use Schedule into format to be recorded.
I. Old Business
Mr. Broach recused himself.
1-4i. Stout Shoes Buildings
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 08030010 V Section 20G.05.04 (A) (3) Retail uses in excess of 50%
Docket No. 08030011 V Section 20G.05.04 (B) (2) (a) Height under 28'/One occupiable floor
Docket No. 08030012 V Section 20G.05.04 (B) (2) Setback ofless than 10'.
Docket No. 08050001 V Section 20G.04.01 (A) Site plan to match adopted plan
Docket No. 08050035 V Section 20G.05.04.C (1) Frontage less than 70' along ROW
The site is located,at 13100-13155 Old Meridian Street and is zoned Old Meridian/Mixed Use within the Old
Meridian District.
Filed by Michael C. Cook of Wooden & McLaughlin LLP for Old Meridian & Main Street Properties, LLC.
n
Present for the Petitioner: Mike Cook, attorney, Wooden & McLaughlin. He asked for a waiver for the
Public Notice for their new Docket No. 08050035 V. At last month's meeting they discussed four LJ
variances. In discussion with Staff, they recognized there was a fifth variance needed with respect to
the amount of the frontage occupied by the building. The Ordinance requires 70 feet and the building
will be a little over 55 feet. They amended their application. They did give nineteen days notice which
complies with State Statute. They had given public notice for the other four variances for the May 19
meeting. One person who attended the May 19th meeting was in support ofthe project. No
remonstrators attended tbe meeting nor bas he had contact from anyone in opposition to the project.
Mr. Dierckman moved to waive the 25-day public notice. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres
and APPROVED 4-0.
Mr.' Cook displayed site elevations. These variances are needed based upon the configuration ofthe
parcel and the additional requirements of the Old Meridian District. The parcel is currently occupied
by the Stout Shoes Store and Tom Mullins Veterinary Clinic. The site will be redeveloped with two
buildings. The north building will be 8240 square feet; 100 feet long by 80 feet deep on each end and
86 feet deep in the middle. It would be occupiable as a one-story building. It will have a fa9ade that
will appear to be a two-story building which would be consistent with the Old Meridian District. That
building is the primary reason for most ofthevariance applications. The middle portion of the building
is approximately 40 feet wide by 86 feet deep. The overall height on each end is 25 feet 4 inches and
30 feet 8 inches in the middle. Therefore, it does not meet the minimum height requirement of 28 feet
on the ends. It will parrot the look of a two-story building, but it does not have two occupiable floors.
Also more than 50 percent of the building is proposed for retail uses. The Ordinance requires no more
than 50 percent of a building have retail uses. It is a building that would have a setback from the
existing right-of-way on Old Meridian Street often feet. The Ordinance requires a ten-foot minimum
setback from the proposed right-of-way in the Thoroughfare Plan which would require a twenty-foot
setback. The purposes of the variances are to allow the development of this site in the most efficient
way and recognizing the parking requirements for each building. The inspiration for the design of this
Page 10 of 22
u
u
u
u
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
building is the old Masala building on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue and just east of the
existing Stout Shoes Store in downtown Indianapolis. The second/south proposed building will contain
a total of 20,640 square feet; 129 feet long by 80 feet wide and 30 feet in height. It meets all the
Ordinance requirements except for the setback. It does have two occupiable floors and will be a mixed-
use building. Through discussions with Staff, that building has been increased in length and overall
size. It has been changed in temlS of its architecture by the addition of windows and brick. They were
before Special Studies on June 3, 2008 on a preliminary basis as requested at the May 19th BZA
meeting. He felt the reception of the project was positive by the Special Studies Committee. They have
eliminated the dryvit on the second floor on the south end ofthe building, making the south end ofthe
second floor all brick. Both of the buildings will be approximately 80 percent brick. The inspiration for
this building is the Stout Shoes Store on Massachusetts Avenue in downtown Indianapolis. These two
buildings are phase one on this site plan. They were asked at the May 19th meeting to provide a site
plan for phase two of this project which is the development ofthe corner of this parcel at Main Street
and Old Meridian Street. This will be a three-story multi-use building made out of materials similar to
and compliment the other two proposed buildings. This building cannot be constructed until the new
facilities for the veterinary clinic are completed. The Petitioner has usages for phase one at this time
therefore, those two buildings will be constructed first. The Stout Shoes5tore and New Balance Store
will occupy the south building in phase one. A rendering of the buildings was shown. The practical
difficulties with the development of this parcel are the parking requirements. Even though they meet
the parking requirements in the Ordinance, they cannot meet the parking requirements for the intense
retail development ofthis parcel. That is one of the reasons they do not have two occupiable floors on
the north building. If they had two occupiable floors on the north building, they would need to change
the building proposed on the comer. Brad Stout, the developer, and Dik Hoover, the engineer, were
also present to answer any questions. According to the Old Meridian District, a landmark building is
proposed at the comer of this parcel. That building was proposed before this site was rezoned for
mixed use. That would require more real estate than this parcel. It would also require the relocation of
the facilities next to this parcel. Therefore, a variance is needed for the site plan not matching the
adopted plan. They felt they were developing the parcel to be consistent with the Old Meridian
District, recognizing the limitations ofthe parcel.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. This request has been modified extensively since its
original filing. The Department has worked closely with the Petitioner to bring about some changes to
the building elevations and the building heights. The docket has also been before the Special Studies
Committee and will return to them for the DP/ADLS approval. The variances for retail uses in excess
of 50 percent and height/one occupiable floor are just for the north building. The overall intensity of
the variances has been mitigated by the modification of the south building. The Department of
Engineering has reviewed the setback request and had no concems. Old Meridian Street has been
improved extensively and it .isunlikely to be improved beyond what has been done. The site plan
variance does stem from the Old Meridian District site plan. The Department is still seeking a
landmark style development, but not necessarily a landmark building. The Department believed in
working with the Petition.er they have gotten to that point with the three buildings that will eventually
fill in the space. With regards to the frontage, they are very close to meeting the required 70 feet. With
the additional building and the proposed landscaping, the overall visual impact will be there. The
Department recommended positive consideration of all the variances.
Page 11 of22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
Mr. Dierckman asked the Petitioner to commit to eliminating the veterinary clinic after they have
moved to their new facility.
Mr. Stout confirmed they would remove tbe building within six months of being vacated.
u
Mrs. Torres reiterated that she is a member of the Special Studies Comnrittee and the plans were very
positively received.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 08030010 V through 08030012. V, 08050001 V, and
08050035 V, Stout Shoes Buildings with the Commitment to remove the vet clinic within six months
of vacation of the building by tbe current user. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and
APPROVED 4-0.
Mr. Dierckman left the meeting at this time. Mr. Broach rejoined the Board.
H. Public Hearing - continued:
lb. Sf. Vincent Carmel Hospital- Sign age
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08050004 V Section 25.07.02-05 (b) Number of signs
The site is located at 13500 N. Meridian S1. It is zonedB~6, Light commercial and office uses adjacent to
limited access highways. Filed by Dan Adler ofBSA LifeStructures for 81. Vincent Carmel Hospital.
lJ
Present for the Petitioner: Dan Adler, architectural firm i3SA LifeStructures.. This variance is for a
new/additional ground sign for the St. Vincent Carmel Hospital. They believe with the construction of
the new roundabout this new sign will help people find the hospital. The current signs on the property
do notprovide adequate signage and directional w~y-finding to the hospital. There are a couple of
existing directional signs along Old Meridian Street. The main concern is adequate way-finding from
Guilford Road with the existing signs. The new sign will provide clear visibility from Guilford Road.
A rendering. of the view from Guilford Road was shared showing sign location and visibility. A view
from southbound Old Meridian Street was also shown.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Miss Boone gave the Department Report. This new sign will be on the southwest comer of the new
roundabout at Old Meridian and Guilford into the entrance of the hospital. It will be about 27 square
feet in size for the sign area. The actual sign will be 5 feet tall by 16 feet wide. They are permitted 75
square feet. There will be interior illumination. It will be made from routed aluminum to match the
existing signs on the site. There are two additional directional signs for the hospital; one at the entrance
to the hospital at the new roundabout and OIre at the south entrance on Old Meridian. The Department
felt the sign would enhance the site. It is done in good taste and it does fit within the Ordinance U
regulations. There are a number of signs at the hospital, but generally the Departmentwas in support of
the sign. .
Mr. Potasnik had visited the site. As he approached the roundabout from Guilford, there is one
entrance with a sign. A little further south is another sign at the south entrance into the property. The
Page 12 of22
u
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
north fayade has the St. Vincent logo which he could see from Guilford. There was a sign in red
directing to the emergency rbom along with numerous other signs. Will all those signs stay? He was
having a hard time figuring out where it would be hard for people to locate St. Vincent's.
Mr. Adler stated the new sign would be in addition to the existing signs. The existing signs are facing
north toward US 31 rather than Guilford Road to the south. He believed the signs were visible when
people were in the roundabout. But further on Guilford the signs are not as visible.
Mr. Hawkins asked ifthere would be landscaping and other decorative motifs in the roundabout. If so,
this sign would serve no purpose.
Miss Boone did not know about the future landscaping for this new roundabout, but all the other
roundabouts have some type of stone or landscaping design in the middle.
Mr. Adler felt the main benefit of the sign was for people approaching on Guilford before they reached
the roundabout. They have tried to raise the sign above the height of the mound in the center of the
roundabout. A large stone structure may obscure the sign.
Mr. Broach asked ifthere was a commitment to landscape the new sign as portrayed in the drawing.
Mr. Adler confinned this sign would be landscaped like the other signs.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 08050004 V, St. Vincent Carmel Hospital-signage, with
the Commitment to landscape the sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach and APPROVED
3-1, with Mr. Potasnik casting the negative vote.
2b. Printing Plus Office
The applicant seeks the following use variance approval:
Docket No. 08050006 UV A~pendixA: Use Table Otlice usesin residential district
The site is located at 505 East 116 Street and is zoned RI/Residential
Filed by Rex Neal of Printing Plus, owner.
Present for the Petitioner: Rex Neal, Sheridan, lN, owner of Printing Plus. He would like to have his
small office in tills house that would be non-owner occupied. He has been in business 25 years. It is a
very small company. He is the only full-time employee with 3 or 4 part-time employees. They print on
small credit card sized plastic. Their customers do not come to the office. With the garage, there will
not be a need for any additional parking. He was not requesting any signs or lights. He will keep the
house residential-looking. Since the cards are small, the delivery of five to ten thou:?and cards is made
by UPS. He felt a family would be a lot more traffic than his small business. The part-time employees
come in around 10:00 AM and leave in time to meet their children's school bus. It is zoned residential.
However, 116th Street is becoming less and less conducive to people wanting to live there. This
property has been shown thirty to forty times, but no one wants to buy it for a residence because of the
increi:l;sing traffic and noise. Some houses have been for sale for two to three years. The property
values are going down because it is becoming less desirable to live there., They could become rental
properties which are not maintained as well. The Westfield Boulevard and 96Lh Street area is becoming
rental properties and they are not maintained as well with lots of people living in one home. He will
keep this house residential-looking. He felt this went along with the Comprehensive Plan:
"Commercial development within residential communities generally should occur only when the
commercial use is not of the community original serving nature and when the intensity and scale is
. Page 13 of22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
compatible with surrounding residential uses." He felt that was what he was proposing. It would look
like a residence and customers would not be coming and going. He will work there six days a week
and usually'brings his ImJ.ch. From time to time due to inclement weather, he does spend the night at
the facility. He felt he was a good residential neighbor.
D
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition.
Favorable:
Mike Godfrey, 2050 E 96lh Street. He also owns a property on 116th Street and at some point would
also like to apply for a Use Variance. He felt n 6th Street was inappropriate for residential use at this
point.. The immediate area has declined terribly. He has put a lot of money into his property to keep it
maintained. He thought it was an appropriate use to allow a small business at this location.
Candy & Ron Laswell, 505 E. 116th Street, current owners of the property. They distributed a packet of
information and pictures. They purchased the home in 1974. It has been on the market for one year.
They have had several showings. There have been multiple interests except for location and that is the
most important thing in real estate. Unfortunately 'they happen to be on one of the busiest streets in
Carmel. When they moved there it was a two-lane road with a cornfield across the street that went for a
mile in each direction. There were no traffic lights north of 86th Street; they were in the country. They
have watched Cannel grow and progress. That can be a double-edged sword. In their case, traffic has
become almost impossible. She displayed a traffic count from November 2005. According to David
Littlejohn, Alternative Traffic Coordinator, a more recent traffic count is in the works, but will not be LJ
available for about six months. In November 2005 they were averaging 15,000 cars per day in front of
their home. That was before ll6th Street was four lanes all the way from Zionsville to Geist.
Meridian/US 31 has become increasingly difficult to navigate because of transportation. The noise
during the day and especially in the evening when they are sitting out on their back porch is extremely
noticeable. In the Sunday, June 22, 2008 Indianapolis Star there was an article on the front page saying
US 31 now carries 100,000 cars per day between Indianapolis and South Bend. They were probably
not all at 116th Street, but she felt 50,000 were on a daily basis. Over the course of the last year they
have had interest in their home. The comments have all been good, except no one wants to live on a
busy street and nobody wants the noise. It is no longer residential because nobody wants to raise their
children there or have their pets running near the street. She shared the pictures of their home showing
traffic and the "For Sale" sign of a home that has been vacant for seven years. That home is gutted on
the inside and has boarded up windows. The City has cut the grass on several occasions after receiving
complaints. The homes are starting to deteriorate because they are vacant or going to rentals. There is a
six-story building and an eight-story building in the Meridian Technology Center. The 79 homeowners
in their homeowners association tried to fight the Meridian Technology Center construction. They did
not have enough money or lawyers. Instead of the cornfield across the street, they now have lakefront
property with a four-lane road between them and the lake. There is another two-story office building
that was built in the past two years. Across from their driveway is the lake as well as a three-story
office building. Also they can see the Duke Realty leasing sign and an assisted living facility with all-
night lighting. Next is another office building and heavy traffic further east from their property. At
College Avenue and Guilford Road along 116lh Street are retail shops, three restaurants, a dry cleaner,
a hair and nail salon, a clothing shop, a cooking school and a dentist. They are getting ready to develop U
additional retail shopping just to the west of the last building. The horse property at the comer of
College and 116th Street is being touted as possible commerciaL She felt if a developer wants it bad
enough, he will pay the $2 million price tag. They lived there a long time arid updated and maintained
their home which they love. Last year they felt it was too much traffic and noise. They moved before
Page 140[22
u
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
they put their home on the market because they wanted to go to a place in the country again. They
never thought it would take this long to get their house sold, especially in the condition they had
maintained. There are 14 homes in a 79-home subdivision that face 116th Street; there are three rentals,
one vacancy and one on the market for over a year. The house east of theirs which had just sold had
been on the market for two years. Mr. Godfrey's house had been on the market about a year when he
bought it. If this request is denied, they will need to market their house as a rental. They do not want to
be landlords, but they calliot afford to let the property sit vacant. It is not good for the neighborhood
and it is not good for the house. The rental fee would be good income. They are still paying the taxes
and utilities, and maintaining the property. They had not had any opposition expressed from the
neighbors they had notified. Mrs. Parish, a backyard neighbor, indicated she had no objection to the
variance. Mr. Neal had made an effort to meet an the neighbors and let them know his plans. He will
not need any signage or structural changes; so they were hoping for a favorable vote.
Cindy Sylvester, ReMax at the Crossing. She verified the property had been listed since June 18,2007.
They have had 35 showings with great comments about the property. It has been updated, but people
do not like tbe location or the road noise. People are concerned about raising children there or letting
their pets out into the yard because of the traffic.
Unfavorable:
Vicky Newlil'l, 11418 Central Drive West, since 1968. She lives behind the house that has been empty
for seven years. She is speaking to save her house and others inside the subdivision. Once a business
starts, she felt it would just take over the whole neighborhood. The house at 501 116th Street is
advertised as a double and she did not think it was zoned for that. There has been a pressboard truck
parked in front of it. She does not want to lose her house to all of this, unless they were going to buy
out the whole neighborhood. She is treasurer for the homeowners association and felt she spoke for a
lot of people that are inside the neighborhood.
Bill Howell, 11501 Ruckle Street, the street behind the property, since 1965. There had been a lot of
changes. He thought the City would have taken them in by 1975 instead of three years ago. They
waited until the residents had sewer and water and everything they needed. Now they have higher
taxes and might get a policeman quicker than the County Sheriff. He felt it was detrimental to the
neighborhood to zone the prop'erty for business. This business might not be too bad, but if one comes
there will be more all up and down the street. They are there eight or nine hours, but what happens to
all the other hours when they are not there. A lot of things can go wrong. He did not feel it would be
advantageous to anyone in the neighborhood to have a business at this location. He recommended they
keep the neighborhood residential as it was designed. There are a lot of people that are very happy on
116lh Street with no problems. The houses do not turn very often. As Mrs. Laswell pointed out, there is
office space down the street.
Darrol McArthy, 11402 Ruckle Street, since 1966. He is a few doors closer to Meridian than the
Laswell property and he scarcely hears the traffic. If you are outside and concentrate on it, you can
hear it, but it is not a bother. This is a nice area to live in. There is a lot of business space available on
Pelllisylvania in low-rise office buildings. He has never seen all the office space occupied. Plus there is
new development between College and Guilford with space available. It was his opinion the area
should stay residential. He thought this would have a negative impact on the overall Northem Heights
homes. During this last year, there has been a housing sales slump and that could be the problem on
getting a buyer. There are lots of workers in the area that need affordable housing like the Northern
Heights homes. The houses on 116th Street are not suitable for families with young children. But there
Page 15 of 22
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
are many other people that need affordable housing. Keeping it residential would be a better image for
this area that is one of the entrances into Carmel, rather than piecemeal businesses intermingled.
D
Rebuttal:
Mr. Neal is not requesting signs and the house will remain looking residential. He felt it would not
look as well if it became a rental. The office buildings available are $2000 to $4500 per month. He is
the only full-time employee and cannot afford that much rent.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton...Holmes gave the Department Report. There have been numerous variance requests for
properties along I I 6th Street. The other section of 116th Street is all residential and a two-lane street at
that roint. In this instance, there are commercial office uses to the north, east and west. This section of
1161 Street is one of the most heavily traveled streets in Carmel. For all intents and purposes, it is a
four-lane major commercial thoroughfare. Typically the Department does not support requests for
businesses based in houses because they can be disruptive to the neighborhood with location and
intensity of use. There will be no signage and parking will not be expanded, so it will still be a house
with a few part-time employees. The Department felt this use could be a. good transition of uses
between the office parks to the north, east and west and the residential uses to the south. The
Department weighs each such request on its own merits. They recognize there will probably be similar
requests along this stretch of 116th Street. COininercial uses can co-exist with residential uses if the
commercial uses are similar in intensity to what would be permitted by a home-based business and it
continues to function as a house. The Department recommended positive consideration of the request.
lJ
Mr. Hawkins stated the application states it is not owner or renter occupied and it has been vacant. He
wanted to know ifMr. Neal was currently using the house. He also asked if the driveway connected to
the adjacent property. Would he commit to using the garage for parking?
Mr. Neal stated he would be moving his business into the house. There are concrete barriers between
the two driveways. They would not be encroaching and the neighbor has no problem with the business
occupying the house. There is a two-car garage, so there would probably be only one car setting in
the driveway.
Mrs. Torres wanted to reiterate this is a Use Variance, not a change in the zoning. It win still remain
R-l Residential zoning.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 08050006 UV, Printing Plus Office with the
Commitment to use the garage for employee parking, so there will be no stacking. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0.
3-13h. KFCrraco Bell
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance apPTOvals:
Docket No. 08050007 V Section 27.08 Reduction in Parking
Docket No. 08050008 V Section 23 ell G Drive- Through Stacking Spaces
Docket No. 08050009 V Section 23 C.I0.02 Foundation plauting reduction
DocketNo. 08050010 V Section 23 C.OS.03 (b) Bufferyard reduction
Docket No. 08050011 V Section 23 C.IO.03 Parking lot planting strip reduction
Docket No. 08050012 V Section 25.07.02-08(a) Monument sign in addition to wall signs
Docket No. 08050013 V Section 25.07.02-08(b) Additional wall signs
Page 16 of22
u
u
u
L
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
Docket No. 08050014 V Section 25.07.02-08(e) Wall signs facing private ROW
Docket No. 08050015 V Section 25.07.02-08 @ Wall sign size
Docket No. 08050016 V Section 25.07.02-08 Menu board size
Docket No. 08050017 V Section 25.07.02-08 Number of menu boards
The site is located at 10575 North Michigan Road and is zoned B3/Commercia1, within the Michigan RoadfUS
421 Overlay.
Filed by Charles Frankenberger of NeIson & Frankenberger for KFC US Properties, Inc.
Present for the Petitioner: Charlie Frankenberger, attomey with Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present
were Joe Boyle, the engineer, and Sandy Moore Auckennan, the regional architect. Thjs project will
also be presented to the Plan Commission on July 15 for DPIADLS review. This is a 1.2 acre site
currently occupied by a vacant Ritter's Frozen Custard stand. The proposed plan superimposed on an
aerial photograph was displayed. The site is located on the east side of Michigan Road, south of 106th
Street. The site has frontage on three streets; Michigan Road to the west, a private street to the south
and a private street to the east. The variances had been fully detailed in the informational packet and
further analyzed in the Department Report. He briefly overviewed the variances beginning with the
signs. A site plan was shown with the perimeter roads. Since two ofthe streets are private streets they
are permitted only two signs under the Sign Ordinance; either a ground sign or a wall sign and one
menu board. They were requesting a wall sign on the south elevation, awall sign on the west elevation,
a monument sign and two menu boards. They believed their requests were consist with existing
signage in the area. An elevation was shown with the two proposed wall signs. Each sign area within
the rectangle enclosing the sign would be 64 square feet. After conferring with the Department, they
agreed to reduce the area of each wall sign to 40 square feet. A rendering was shown with the two 40
square feet signage areas. They also agreed to revise the building to eliminate almost all of the EFIS.
The exterior building materials will be almost exclusively brick. A rendering of the monument sign
was shown. Per the Department recommendations, they had added the sandstone cap and the brick
frame to match the building. The preview board and menu board will be located in the dl1ve-thru area
and will be shielded from the Michigan Road Corridor by the building. An illustration of the preview
board was shown. This board allows customers to preview the menu before the menu ordering board.
The drive-thru services are made more efficient by reducing time in line. After conferring with the
Department, they agreed to reduce the height of the preview board to six feet and to reduce the area of
the preview board to 16 square feet. With the reductions, the menu board will be within the perimeters
of allowed size and area. The variance is for this additional menu board. An illustration of the menu
board was also shown. Tills facility will sell both Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell products. It
was a challenge to get sufficient information on the boards. They agreed to eliminate the advertising
strip along the top of the board, thereby reducing the height of the menu board. They also agreed to
reduce the overall size of the menu board from 47 square feet to 32 square feet. A rendering was
shown of the revised board which will be 6 feet tall with an area of 32 square feet, excluding the base.
The variances for the landscaping pertain to the width of foundation plantings and the width of
perimeter buffers. He felt they were sufficiently addressed in the packets and the Department Report. It
was his lmderstanding that Scott Brewer, the Urban Forester, had reviewed and approved the landscape
plan as submitted. They are excited about tius redevelopment. It will allow several improvements to
existing conditions, including reduced impervious surface, more landscaping, a more attractive
building and bicycle parking.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Page 17 of22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23,2008
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report for the landscape reduction and setback and parking
variance requests. The Petitioner was asking for a reduction from the 59 required parking spaces to 36
spaces and from 10 required stacking spaces to 8 spaces. There are other fast-food restaurants in the
corridor that have received similar variances in the recent past. Given that a large proportion of
business for a fast-food restaurant is the drive-thru, as well as the large amount of adjacent parking, the
Department does not have any concerns with the proposed reductions. With regards to the landscape
reductions, the Petitioner has been working with the Urban Forester. The site will actually have more
available gJ:'eenspace and pervious space thanis currently available on the site. Currently the majority
of the site is paved and the Petitioner is limited as to how much landscaping they can create on the site.
The overall amount of landscapi:ng will not be significantly reduced. While the amount oflandscaping
in specific ~eas in the bufferyard would be reduced, the plantings would be located elsewhere ou the
site, particularly within the drive-thru island. The Urban Forester has reviewed all of the submitted
landscape plans and has not expressed any major concerns with the requests.
Miss Boone gave the Department Report for the signage. The Department Report incorrectly stated "if
all the streets were private, the signs would be allowed." It should have read "if all the streets were
public, the signs would be allowed." The two private streets on the east and south are heavily
trafficked. Along this corridor, they have given other businesses varianc~s for signs facing these
streets. The two wall signs have each been reduced to 40 square feet, which is permitted in the Sign
Ordinance. This size will look bett"er architecturally in the sign band area above the doors, The
variances are needed for signs not facing the right-of.way and the number of signs. The Department
was happy the Petitioner had decided to reduce the size of the preview board to 16 square feet. This fits
within the Sign Ordinance, but will need a variance because of the number of proposed menu boards.
The large menu board will be 32 square feet, which would be 16 square feet for each of the two
menus/restaurants. The reduced height of 6 feet makes the sign more in compliance with the Sign
Ordinance. The Department was in support of all the sign variances with the proposed reductions in
size. They would no longer need Docket No.. 08050015 V wall sign size, because theAO square feet for
each wall sign is now in compliance with the Ordinance.
Mrs. Torres wanted clarification on the wall signs. She thought a variance was needed if only logos
with no words were used in the signage.
Miss Boone stated they can have 100 percent logo signage in a center that is not integrated. If it was in
a center with multiple tenants, then the logo could only be 25 percent. Because there are not seven or
more tenants, this does not qualify as a multi-tenant building.
Mr. Potasnik asked about the menu board size. The size was reduced because they eliminated the
advertising that appeared across the top oftbesign. The menu board is basically split in half with KFC
on half and Taco Bell on the other half. How much does it exceed the Sign Ordinance? Did the
Department ask for the base for the menu board?
Miss Boone stated it exceeds the Ordinance by 16 square feet. The base is not included. This is the
actuaLsign area. The Department typically asks for the base to match the building. They have reduced
it to an acceptable size which is 6 feet in height including the base.
Mr. Frankenberger stated with two restaurant menus, they have more products to show on the menu
board. The preview board helps with the menu selections. The menu board is the correct height, but a
Page 18 of22
D
rj
D
u
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
larger sign was needed to list the food products. Neither of these menu boards will be visible from
Michigan Road.
Mr. Potasnik wanted to make sure that advertising would not be fastened to the sides of the sign.
Mr. Frankenberger confIrmed nothing would be fastened to the sign.
Mrs. Torres asked why the variances for reductions in bufferyards were needed, if the greenspace was
being increased. Was the reduction between Michigan Road and the parking lot?
Mr. Frankenberger believed the greenspace was being made up in the island at the drive-thm.
Joseph Boyle with GPD Associates, Akron OH, engineer for the project. The reason they will have
more impervious area on this site is the existing Ritter's does not have a bufferyard along the east
property. Also, it does not have a bufferyard along the north property. That is a small area on the north
side of the building and they will be providing some landscaping there. They will be able to gain some
more landscaping at the southwest comer of the property. There will be a landscaping island to the east
of the building. All those small increases do increase the impervious area. The Ritter's had a lot of
pavement around the property and did not comply with the greenspace-requirements. The areas were
indicated on a site plan. Even with the variances, this proj ect will have more landscaping. There is now
some landscaping in areas that had been empty. That might explain the contradictions.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated this Ritter's and the Wendy's to the north ofthis location pre-date the
Overlay requirements.
Mr. Frankenberger felt the Department and the Urban Forester were comfortable with the landscape
plan that was submitted. They have increased the impervious surface over the existing conditions.
Mrs. Torres asked them to indicate the point of ingress.
Mr. Boyle showed the ingress along the private access drive and the progression through the site.
There are actually three entrances to the facility. The opening, with pavement striping, in the drive-thm
area is for anyone who needs to get out of the drive-thm lane.
Mr. Hawkins was concerned traffIc from the private drive would try to go through the opening and into
the drive-tbm. He was worried they would cause a stacking problem trying to come into the restaurapt.
Mr. Boyle stated they could put a small mountable curb there. If someone needed to get out, they
could. But it would not be open and obvious for someone to come in that way.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated ifthey tried to cut into the drive-thru at that point, they would be past the
menu ordering board. It was possible, but unlikely. The Department would prefer to see the ability to
get out of the drive-thru lane.
Mr. Broach moved to approve Docket Nos. 08050007 V through 08050014 V and 08050016 V
through 08050017 V, KFC/Taco Bell as amended by the Petitioner. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0.
Page 19 of22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
14h. Hornbean Ct Addition
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 08050018 V Section 5.04.03.D (1) Reduction of rear yard setback
The site is located at 5847 Hombean Court and is zoned Sl/Single-Family Residential.
Filed by Brent Bennett of A-I Expeditors for Dennis Shock, owner.
r-l
U
Present for the Petitioner: Brent Bennett, project manager. The owners want to remove the current
deck and replace it with a sunroom and a side deck, taking up the back yard. There is a 20-foot
setback. The property line dives in drastically and they only have 28 feet at one area. The existing deck
would not be compliant with the City Ordinance. The existing deck is 11.5 feet and the sunroom will
be 12 feet. They are asking for an allowance of the setback to 16 feet, giving them a relief of 4 feet.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. From the aerial photograph, she indicated the rear
yard that is shallower than several of the adjoining parcels which have s~milar improvements. After
construction of the sunroom and legally establishing the deck structure, the rear yard encroachment
would only be four feet. There are no easements or floodplain issues. The Department does not feel
that this would negatively impact the surrounding area in keeping with similar improvements. The
Department recommended positive consideration.
o
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 08050018 V, Hornbean Court Addition. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0.
15-17h. Carmel Hope Fellowship
The applicant seeks the fonawing development standards variance and special use amendment approvals:
Docket No. 08050030 Section 26.02.08 Reduced setback, front yard
Docket No. 08050031 Section 7.04.03 Reduced setback, side/front yard
Docket No. 08050032 Appendix A, Use Table Amendment of approved special use
The site is located at 14535 Carey Road and,is zoned RIIResidential.
Filed by Don Hawley of Carmel Hope Fellowship of Seventh-Day Adventists.
Present for the Petitioner: Don Hawley, appointed to represent Carmel Hope Fellowship with authority
granted by the Indiana Association of Seventh-Day Adventists, the legal property holder. They were
granted Special Use and Variances on May 24,2004. This amendment to their Special Use is to allow
them to change the footprint of their proposed new building and to build a 15 by 26 feet addition to the
east end of the existing chapel. A site plan was shown. This expansion would allow them to
accommodate an increasing number of worshippers while they complete the final design and building
of their sanctuary and classroom building. The new building will be substantially like the one
previously approved. The footprint of the expansion was shown. It would be finished with matching
windows. They have been informed by the Alternative Transportation Coordinator that they will need
to install ten-foot asphalt paths in lieu ofthe six-foot paths that were previously approved, as well as D
bicycle parking to meet the City Ordinances. They will also need to connect all internal sidewalks to
the perimeter paths and install ADA complIant handicap ramps at all crossings. Scott Brewer, the
Urban Forester, will need new landscape plans to show corrections to any plap.tings affected by the .
proposed new footprint. They have agreed to communicate with Weihe Engineers to include all
required changes to the site plans. They have completed Phase 1 and have been using the remodeled
oPage 20 of 22
u
u
u
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
building since 2005. Phase 2 was the completion of the parking lot. That has been built with concrete,
as opposed to asphalt, to enhance the overall appearance of the property. In addition, they request the
previously approved IS-foot setback for the parking area be extended to the north property line. This
will allow them adequate room in the new building for the classroom areas for the children, as well as
tbe multi-purpose room. The setback line was indicated on the site plan. They were previously given a
variance for a five-foot setback due to the County requirements changing. They were asking for that to
be extended around the cornertc where the 35-foot setback ends. They were originally requested to
give the appearance of an entrance at this location even though their main entrance is on the south end
ofthe building. Due to the small size of the property, it would be a hardship for the congregation to
construct the needed building without the approval of these requests. These variances will make it
possible to have the desired appearance for this neighborhood and this very visible corner.
Members of the public were invited to speakin favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. This is a revision and slight expansion of what was
approved in 2004. The original new construction was proposed to be 10,.800 square feet. The new
proposal is 12,000 square feet, which is a minor increase. The building footprint has been reconfigured
to better fit the shape of the lot. This brought about the need for the reduced front yard and side yard
setbacks. Since this is a comer lot, they have two front yards and two side yards. Even though they are
requesting setbacks, the building would be set back more than 50 feet from the existing right-of-way of
146th Street, which has recently been improved. The Department of Engineering did not indicate any
concerns with the reduction in setbacks. Any building encroachment is unlikely to be an issue in the
foreseeable future. The building addition to the existing frame house does not require any variances. It
falls within all the necessary setbacks. The request is just to modify the front yard setbacks to better
accommodate the shape of the building and the unusual shape of the lot. This will also amend their
previous Special Use approval. The Department was in support of all the requests.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 08050030 V, 08050031 V and 08050032 SUA, Carmel
Hope Fellowship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach and APPROVED 4-0.
192011. Prairie Trace Softball Camplex TABLED UNTIL JULY 28
The applicant seeks the following special use and development standards variance:
Deeket No. 08020033 8U..(1 ScetioH 21.{13 Expansiea af sehao) uses
Doclwt No. 08020034 V Section 25.7.02 5 Addition a) institutional sign taUer than permitted.
The site is located at 14200 North River Road and is zoned S 1.
Filed by William Payne of Far..ning/Hmvey .'\sGooiates, Inc. for Cannel Clay Schools.
21h. MuelJer Property South UHdergnnmd LimestaHe Operation TABLED JULY 17
The applicant seeks the [ollm'ling special use approval:
Doclwt No. 08030032 SU ,.(.ppendix A: Use Table U~ifliHg-iH residential district
The 96 acre site is locat.ed at 5345 East 10611I Street and is zoned Sl/Residential.
Filed by H. Wayne Phears of Ph eaTS and MoldoYlHl for Martin Manetta Materials, Inc.
Page 21 of22
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
June 23, 2008
I. Old Business ~ continued
(it MOHon & Main, H8its 3."..., 3D, & 4F. . TABLED UNTIL JULY 28
The applicant seeks the folh,ving development standards variance approval:
Docket Nos.ll80300l <t Hi V Seetion IS.2a afPUD Z <162 04 BOn residential uses on21ll1-&3Al4looFs
Docket Nos. OS030026 28 Y Section2.13.B ofPUD Z-462 O<l 2 eRr gfU'Qge req-uirem.ent
The sites are located northeast of Third Ave NW and Maia St., and are zoned PUD!Plar-med Unit Development.
Filed by Mr. and :Mrs. :\rdalan for Soori Gallery.
7-13i. Cirele K/Shell TABLED UNTIL JULY 28
The applicant seeks the talloy/ing deyclopment standards va-Bance approvals:
Docket Na. 08030019 V Sectian BF.05.01B Build to line greater than 10'
Docket No. Og030020 Y SectiaH 23F.07.02 Height nnder 26'
Docket No. 08030021 V Seetion BF.07.01 One occupiable floor
Docket No. GS030022 Y Section 23F.08.01 Floor .\.rea RAtio miRimum 0.5
Docket No. 08030023 V Seetion BF'{)6.02 Yro:Rtage minimum 70%
Docket N.o. Og03002<l V SectioH BY.lS.02 Parking located in trant of buildiHg
Docket No. 08030025 V Scctiau 23F.l1.03 Landscaping & screening
The site is located at 1230 South Range line Road and is zoned B3lBusinesG, within the Carmel DrivelRangeline
Road Overlay. .
Filed by Donald Fisher ofInsight Engineering for Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC.
J. New Business
There was no New Business.
K. Adjournment
Mr. Broach moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.
S:\Board of Zoning Appcals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2008120080623.rtf
Page 22 of22
u
[J
....
u