HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 09-27-99CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 27, 1999
The regularly scheduled meeting of September 27, 1999 of the Board of Zoning Appeals
was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 PM in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: Earlene Plavchak; Pat Rice; and Tom Yedlick.
The minutes of the August meeting were approved as submitted.
John Molitor announced that the Omnipoint Telecommunications and the Sprint
Tower items will be heard at a special meeting of the Board scheduled for October 26,
1999 at 7:00 in the Council Chambers. There will be no additional notice on those items.
Pat Rice moved to reorder the Agenda so that Max and Erma's, V- 42 -99, V- 43 -99, and
V- 44 -99, would be heard as the first item of business.
H. Public Hearing:
8i. Max and Erma's (V- 42 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of section
23B.8.6 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow a restaurant to be
constructed which is 7,744 square feet where 15,000 square feet is the minimum
allowed. The site is located near the intersection of Carmel Drive and U.S.
Highway 31. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is within the U.S. Highway 31
Overlay Zone.
Filed by Philip Nicely of Bose McKinney Evans.
9i. Max and Erma's (V- 43 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
23B.5.A and Section 23B.5.B of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow
retail uses to comprise more than fifteen percent (15 of the Development Plan
for the Hamilton Crossing Complex. The site is located near the intersection of
Carmel Drive and U.S. Highway 31. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is
located within the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Philip Nicely of Bose McKinney Evans.
10i. Max and Erma's (V- 44 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
25.7.02 -8b /8c of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow a 44 square foot
sign on the north facade and an 83 square foot sign on the west facade where only
one sign per street frontage is allowed. The site is located near the intersection of
West Carmel Drive and U.S. Highway 31. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is
located within the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Philip Nicely of Bose McKinney and Evans.
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 1
Philip Nicely, attorney, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board
representing the applicant. Approval is being sought for three Developmental Standards
Variances for the Max and Erma's Restaurant within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone at the
southeast corner of 126 Street and U.S. 31.
Also in attendance: Christopher Holgate, director of real estate for Max Erma's, Jim
McMillan, regional manager for Max Erma's, Cindy Wong of Duke -Weeks
Development, Allen Tucker of CSO Architects, Steve Granner, planner with Bose
McKinney Evans, and Todd Barnum, president and CEO of Max Erma's Restaurant.
Todd Barnum addressed the Board and gave a brief history of the Max Erma's
Restaurants that was started 27 years ago. Max Erma's has been in the Indianapolis
market approximately 20 years. Three variances are being requested for the proposed
restaurant that promises to be a wonderful amenity for the community. The restaurant
will be a high level, quality establishment, outstanding operation, and family "gathering
place." The restaurant will be a source of pride for Max Erma's as well as the Carmel
community.
Phil Nicely explained the variances requested. One variance is for signage, to allow two
signs as opposed to one. The size of the signs is permitted under the Ordinance
Technically, frontage of the restaurant is on one street, but as a practical matter, there is
frontage on two streets. Secondly, the retail area is more than 15% of the building,
assuming that a restaurant is retail. The current proposal does meet that standard.
Thirdly, the required building size under the Ordinance is a minimum of 15,000 square;
the proposed restaurant is 7,744 square feet.
Mr. Nicely reviewed the Ordinance that was in being at the time this petition was filed
and presented his rationale for requesting the variances. The petitioner filed application
with the Plan Commission for ADLS and Development Plan approval for the retail
portion of the property. At that time, the applicant indicated that a hotel and restaurant
were contemplated at the southern end of the property, although those plans had not yet
been finalized.
After the Max Erma's petitioner had been filed with the Plan Commission, an
Ordinance was subsequently drafted and passed by the Council that retail could comprise
only 15% of a building. If the restaurant is considered retail, it comprises more than 15%
of the building because it comprises 100% of the building.
If the Overlay Ordinance had not been amended, the petitioner would have been able to
proceed and the 15% Variance would not have been required. The site plan shows that
the restaurant is not an isolated building, it is a building as part of a total development
and looks like all other buildings built at Hamilton Crossing -it should all be considered
as one.
Mr. Nicely stated that there is a slight inconsistency in the Overlay Ordinance because it
specifically provides that a restaurant is a permitted use, yet, in another section, it
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 2
provides that retail is limited to 15% of the building. In Mr. Nicely's opinion, this creates
an inconsistency in the Ordinance, assuming that a restaurant is retail use.
The building fronts north, with a large part of the building facing U.S. 31 and the lake
area. There is a walkway between the restaurant and the hotel and between the hotel and
existing retail on the site. Hotel guests can easily walk to the Max Erma's restaurant
and to the retail area for shopping. The restaurant is not an isolated building but is a part
of a total development, Hamilton Crossing East, with the same type of architecture as the
hotel and the retail area, and comprises and looks like one total development. The
dumpsters and trash containers for the restaurant are located inside the building -there is
no separate enclosure necessary outside the building. Max Erma's has provided a
substantial amount of landscaping and green area improvements around the building, a
fountain is being installed within the lake, and Duke is also putting a third fountain in the
center of the lake within the entire retail development. Mr. Nicely reported that the
proposed building is a substantial step up from the normal prototype for a Max Erma's
restaurant; an outstanding and quality development.
The restaurant, as proposed, consists of 7,744 square feet. The building is a two -story
building and from outside appearances, gives the impression of a building containing
15,000 square feet. The height of the building is two stories; windows have been added
to give it the look of a functional, second story. Suggestions have been made to add a
functional, second floor to come up to a 15,000 square foot building, or that the restaurant
could be connected to the hotel, thereby increasing the square footage. The result of
adding another floor would do nothing to the exterior of the building and would only
result in added expense without any usage. The Hampton Inn has a company -wide policy
against connecting any restaurants to its building. Also, Max Erma's does not want the
appearance of serving hotel food.
Mr. Nicely submitted letters to the Commission from a number of businesses in the
corridor stating that this type of restaurant is necessary and an appropriate amenity that
would serve the many persons employed in the corridor.
It is the petitioner's belief that they have accomplished the objective of the corridor with
the proposed development and have also met the Overlay Ordinance in providing a
quality development.
The signs shown on the elevations are green to match the color scheme of the retail
development. The size is in accordance with the Ordinance and no variance is being
requested for size. The Ordinance provides for signage only on a frontage road. Mr.
Nicely stated that the building fronts on the corridor and also faces 126 Street. Two
signs are being requested.
Mr. Nicely stated that the overall size and architecture of the restaurant is compatible
with the entire Hamilton Crossing commercial development and considered as a part of
one development, whether the buildings are actually physically connected or not.
Secondly, the use and value of the adjacent property is in not adversely affected, but will
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 3
actually be enhanced by the proposed development by providing an amenity for the entire
corridor. Thirdly, the strict compliance with the ordinance will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because of the initial master plan for Hamilton
Crossing that provided for a quality restaurant from the beginning Approval of the
restaurant will not be injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed development; the
following persons appeared:
Chuck Lazarra, 12156 North Meridian Street, operator of the Ritz Charles within the
Overlay Zone, spoke in favor of Max Erma's petition for several reasons. From a
business standpoint the proposed restaurant will be good for the community and good for
businesses in the area. The Ritz Charles was the first development in the area and
suffered many hardships as a result. The area is just beginning to grow in the corridor. A
number of ancillary services are needed in the corridor to keep the business in the
corridor as well as restaurants that are able to serve the people that are working in the
corridor. From a common sense standpoint, Mr. Lazarra appealed to the Board to
approve the petition, thereby providing additional services for the corridor to help the
Ritz Charles and the community grow, and to keep the business in Carmel.
Doug Leads, 14002 Old Mill Circle, Springmill Ponds, spoke in favor of the restaurant.
Mr. Leads had lived across from a Max Erma's Restaurant in German Town in
Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Leads commented that Max Erma's was a good neighbor and
really became a part of the neighborhood. More restaurants are needed in the Carmel
area; very few choices are available. A restaurant would be good for people working in
the area, but also good for the residents who live in the area and who would like a choice
of restaurants. There are very few restaurants that are over 15,000 square feet and this
stipulation precludes a lot of restaurants from being a part of the neighborhood.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petitioner; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Terry Jones reported the Department's position elements requested in the variance can
be satisfied without the variance. The lot does not pose any practical difficulty with
respect to the size that would not accommodate the 15,000 square foot rule. Terry Jones
reviewed the Ordinance in support of the Department's position. The Department is
recommending that the Variances be denied.
There were questions and comments from the Board regarding the Ordinance, and the
recommendations of the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Task Force.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of Docket V- 42 -99, to allow a 7,744 square foot
restaurant. APPROVED 3 -0.
Tom Yedlick moved for the approval of Docket No. V- 43 -99, to allow retail use of more
than 15% of the Development Plan. APPROVED 3 -0.
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 4
Tom Yedlick moved for the approval of Docket No. V- 44 -99, to allow a 44 square foot
sing on the north facade and an 83 square foot sign on the west facade of the building.
APPROVED 3 -0.
3h. Robinson Barber Shop (UV- 61 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Use Variance in order to establish a barber shop in
an existing residential structure previously used as a sign shop. The site is located
at 751 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -5 /Business.
Filed by Pat Robinson.
Bill Wendling, attorney, 650 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the Board representing
the petitioner. Approval is being sought for the operation of a barber shop in an existing
facility at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Range
Line Road, next door to the Wesleyan Church.
The facility has been used most recently as a sign shop. The structure will be
significantly remodeled both on the inside and outside for the proposed use. There are
currently a number of small businesses in operation in the Range Line Road corridor.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no
one appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Terry Jones reported that the Department is recommending favorable consideration at this
time.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Wendling stated that the structure is
currently being used as a four unit dwelling and is zoned B -5 /Business.
Terry Jones reported that a multiple unit dwelling is not allowed under B -5 /Business and
the current use is not in compliance with the zoning.
The petitioner agreed to TABLE until the October meeting until more information is
available as to the history of the zoning, available parking, signage, etc.
4h. H.C. Burnett Subdivision, Lot 2 (V- 65 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
8.4.3(D) of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow a twelve -foot rear yard
setback. The site is located at 520 Burnett Court. The site is zoned R-
2 /Residential.
Filed by John Krom of Habitat for Humanity Hamilton County, Inc.
Rick Roesch, 832 Spruce Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing
Habitat for Humanity.
Burnett Court has a 25 foot right -of -way that dead ends at the end of the third lot. The
distance between the fencing on either side of the street is 26 1/2 feet and within one foot
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 5
of the property line. The lots are 60 feet deep with 119 feet of street frontage. All five,
existing homes have a front setback of approximately 19 feet from the street right -of -way
to the building line, not including the stoops and porches of the house. The stoop of the
house to the left (north) of the site has a setback of 13 feet and the porch on the house to
the right (south) has a setback of 9 feet. The site at 520 Burnett Court has a rear setback
of approximately 16 feet and the unattached garage has a rear setback of 6 feet.
It is the petitioner's belief that it would be very difficult to develop the site as other
properties in the immediate area have been developed and without altering the current
setback requirements.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following
appeared:
Jerry Stafford, 531 Burnett Court, stated that the property is just not large enough for
what is being proposed. To crowd another house in the area is a disservice to the
immediate residents. The area has no sidewalks, no streetlights, and there is not adequate
space for an additional home. Mr. Stafford is strongly opposed to the petition.
Pat Autrey, 530 Burnett Court, immediately north of the proposed home, agreed with Mr.
Stafford. There are five homes on the street at present and inadequate space for another
home.
Bill Wittmere, 510 Burnett Court, stated that there is 16 feet between his home and his
neighbor's. Mr. Wittmere does not have use of the 16 feet and cannot cut his grass
without disturbing the neighbors. There is no privacy because of the close proximity of
the homes and no parking for guests. Mr. Wittmere also stated that the neighbors had not
met with the Habitat for Humanity group and were only contacted by registered letter.
Bob Gallagher, 521 Burnett Court, felt that the proposed structure was OK; however, the
street is only 16 feet wide, no curbs or gutters, and not wide enough to accommodate
construction traffic without cutting down some very mature trees. It is even difficult to
get a trash truck into the area. Mr. Gallagher was in favor of making the site a
neighborhood park. There is no space for additional parking. Also, there has been no
input from the neighbors on the proposed project.
After some discussion, Rick Roesch asked that the petition be tabled to allow Habitat for
Humanity an opportunity to meet with the neighbors.
Docket V- 65 -99, H.C. Burnett Subdivision, Lot 2 (Habitat for Humanity) was
TABLED to the October meeting.
After a short recess, the Board resumed its meeting.
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 6
I. Old Business
11h. Telamon Sign (V- 46 -99)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
25.7.02 -8(b) of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to permit two signs on one
frontage where only one is allowed. The site is located at 1000 East 116 Street.
The site is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing.
Filed by Larry Rodeman.
The petitioner failed to appear for the third time.
Pat Rice moved to strike this item from the Agenda; if the Petitioner wishes to present the
Telamon Sign at a future date, the petitioner must re -file. APPROVED 3 -0.
John Molitor commented that under the Board's Rules of Procedure, any application
dismissed for lack of prosecution shall not be placed on the Agenda for consideration
within a period of three months following the date of dismissal from the Agenda.
12i. Carmel/Clay Schools Bus Maintenance Facility (SU- 55 -99)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to construct a Facilities and Transportation
building and additional parking known as the Carmel/Clay Bus Maintenance
Facility. The site is located at 5201 East 131s Street. The site is zoned 5-
1 /Residence. The public hearing on this item remains open.
Filed by Rollin Farrand Jr. of Carmel /Clay Schools.
Dave Coots, attorney, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board
representing the School Board. Also in attendance were Rollin Farrand, Jr. and John
Blankenship of the Facilities and Transportation Dept. and Miranda Simmons of Shenkel
and Shultz Engineering.
The petitioner is seeking a special use application for purposes of demolishing and
rebuilding the maintenance building for the Carmel /Clay Schools Transportation Facility.
The ingress and egress will be by private drive from 126 Street to the south and 131s
Street from the north.
Mr. Coots circulated photographs of the existing, 6,000 square foot building that the
school uses for bus maintenance, cleaning, etc. To the south of the existing structure is
an office facility. A bus parking area presently accommodates 125 buses that exit to the
north and /or the south.
The west property boundary is shared with the Mohawk Crossing Subdivision and
photographs of the vegetation along the west property boundary were shown. The buffer
along the western property line will not be altered in any way by the current proposal.
The fuel site accommodates not only those buses owned by the School Corporation but
City vehicles as well. Photographs of the existing lighting facility were also shown.
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 7
The existing road that currently runs to the west of the baseball field will be converted
and expanded into parking for bus drivers and persons using the school athletic facilities.
The purpose is to eliminate the street as a through street for general public use. The site
will still be available for emergency vehicles and obviously for all city vehicles for
fueling as well as entry from the north and south for buses as they return to the parking
facility. The parking area is a needed amenity; presently there is no parking facility
available and it will be used for bus drivers and other persons attending functions at Clay
Jr. High.
The north elevation is the main entry to the facility; the facade will be red brick and
raised rib metal siding. The west elevation that faces the bus parking area will have three
overhead doors for bus service as does the east elevation that faces the northeast and the
existing administration building. The south elevation to the southwest faces the buffered
area between the facility and the neighbors to the north and west.
There will be no lighting added to the rear of the building, only to the sides that are
interior to the school property. There will be no additional lighting to the parking area,
only security lighting. A photometric study has been done that shows the lighting of the
entire perimeter of the site at one -tenth of a foot candle or less.
Drainage: The proposed facility will drain into an existing drainage swale to the north
and east, between the proposed structure and the existing administration office. No other
drainage will be affected. The parking lot sheet drains to the west, north, and then into
the detention area.
Bus Noise and Exhaust Output: Mr. Farrand has measured exhaust levels and determined
that they meet EPA regulations. Mr. Farrand has circulated a memorandum to all bus
drivers regarding guidelines for limiting the warm -up period of engines, although this is
somewhat impacted by the weather. The air brakes system takes approximately 15
minutes of warm -up to activate the pressure. In cold weather, slightly more time is
required. Horn noise is a part of the pre -trip safety check, although all drivers have been
requested to refrain from continuous honking or musical playing of horns. Idling time
between trips will be eliminated and re -starts will be made if a second trip is necessary.
The petitioner has met with the adjacent property owners to address their concerns. The
petitioner has committed to increase the landscaping to the north and west around the
building to create a solid, visual buffer throughout the year.
In response to comments and suggestions to re- locate the facility, Mr. Coots stated that to
move the existing facility would be a 4 to 5 million dollar expenditure, considering fuel
storage, infrastructure, and proximity to school use requirements.
The petitioner has appeared before Technical Advisory Committee and addressed all of
its concerns.
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 8
Mr. Coots stated that the re- fueling stations will not be relocated. Some of the parking
along the west boundary will be reconfigured when the existing building is demolished.
Buses will then be moved off the west property boundary to the center parking
configuration.
Point of Clarification in regard to landscaping: The Department is requesting a copy of
the new landscape plan. Apparently the residents are satisfied with the proposed plan. It
is recommended that any approval be conditioned upon landscape commitments being
submitted in writing and recorded.
Rollin Farrand of the Carmel /Clay Schools addressed the Board. The School Corporation
has committed to the neighbors to pursue approval for funding for the landscaping from
the School Board. The landscaping will be a separate project and include additional
landscaping and evergreen trees so that there will be a dense, visual barrier even in the
winter months.
There was further discussion regarding the landscape barrier to the west and the
commitment from the school.
Pat Rice recommended that the petitioner commit to numbers of trees, species, type of
landscaping, and that a final landscape plan be submitted to the Department as a
condition of any approval. There was also a question of the noise level from air
conditioning units.
Miranda Simmons of Shenkel and Shultz responded that the noise level from the air
conditioning units was brought up at the Technical Advisory Committee. The noise level
is below maximum sound. The maximum noise level for the units used is 90 decibles.
The screen/visual buffer will follow the Buffer Guidelines on file at the Department of
Community Services.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of SU- 55 -99, Carmel/Clay Schools Bus Maintenance
Facility, conditioned upon commitments made for a final, correct layout plan, and a
landscape plan satisfactory to the Department of Community Services, including a Memo
from Ron Farrand dated September 20, 1999 to all bus drivers. APPROVED 3 -0.
Due to the Christmas holiday in December, the Board voted to eliminate the December
meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
9:45 PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Earlene Plavchak, Vice President
s:\BZA\Minutes \1999sept 9