HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 08-28-00CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AUGUST 28, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM
in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members present were: Leo Dierckman (late arrival); Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak;
Pat Rice; and Charles Weinkau£
Director Steve Engelking; Terry Jones and Laurence Lillig were present representing the
Department of Community Services.
The minutes of the July 24 meeting were approved as submitted.
F. Legal Counsel Report:
John Molitor reported that there are settlement discussions regarding three cases
pending involving the Board. As a result, two of those cases could be settled within the
next month and it would be prudent to schedule a second meeting or overflow meeting
for September and in that overflow meeting, also schedule an Executive Session to
discuss potential settlement in the matters of litigation.
G. Reports, Announcements and Staff Concerns:
Laurence Lillig announced the Dockets that were TABLED for this evening:
Cherry Tree Elementary, V- 62 -00; V- 63 -00; V -64 -00
Merchants Pointe, V -83 -00
Town Village, UV- 84 -00; V -85 -00
Lakes at Hazel Dell Subdivision, Section 1, Common Area 3 (SUA- 88 -00)
Orin Jessup Land Company's First Addition, Lot 126 127 (Part) (SUA -89 -00
and SUA- 90 -00)
Vertical Real Estate Telecommunications Tower (SE- 107 -00)
Brooks Landing at Prairie View, Section 1, Lot 3 (V- 56 -00)
Mayflower Park, Block 6, Lot 2 (V- 77 -00, V- 78 -00, V- 79 -00, V- 80 -00)
Mayflower Park, Block 6, Lot 2 (V- 81 -00, V- 82 -00)
These items will be before the Board in September.
H. Public Hearing:
lh. Woodland Country Club Golf Course (SUA -6 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval to expand the existing golf course to 168.0 acres. The
site is located southwest of the intersection of East 116 Street and Keystone
Avenue. The site is zoned R- I /Residence.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for Woodland Country
Club, Inc.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\bza2000aug
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the
applicant, Woodland Country Club, Inc. Also present on behalf of Woodland County
Club was its president, Phil Minton, John Hart, and of the CDG Consulting firm, Brian
Sullivan.
The Woodland Country Club is located in the southwest quadrant of the 116 and
Keystone Avenue intersection and consists of 168 acres. Woodland Country Club will
soon celebrate its 50 anniversary -today it contains an 18 hole golf course, a club house,
a swimming facility, pro shop, tennis facility and maintenance building. A narrow spine
of homes dissects the Woodland Golf Course that exists north and south of Woodland
Lane. The golf course was created in the early 1950's by Bill Diddle -a time before the
extension of zoning to this part of Clay Township. The Joinder Agreement between
Carmel and Clay Township became effective in 1957.
The Special Use Application requests approval to re- design the existing golf course and
to expand the course into a 52 acre parcel of real estate, termed the "Holland" property,
that has been owned by Woodland over the last several years. The re- design and
expansion is part of a larger plan that involves the sale by Woodland of 14 acres to the
Linder Company for a mixed use development to be know as Merchants Pointe. The 14
acre parcel was rezoned in June to the B -8 Business District to provide for Merchants
Pointe, an extension of Merchants Square. The rezone was approved by the City Council
and provides for the dedication to the City of Carmel of the needed right -of -way to
accommodate the expansion of 116 Street.
The proposed plan includes utilization by Woodland of the 52 acres that extends to
Westfield Boulevard, forming its west boundary line. Important to the Special Use
Application are certain commitments that Woodland made in connection with the rezone
application. These commitments become effective upon the approval of the Special Use.
Woodland committed that the portion of the property utilized for the golf course would
remain a golf course for not less than 15 years; until the year 2030, in the event
Woodland were to choose to sell the real estate, the City of Carmel would have the first
right to purchase the real estate at a price determined according to R -1 values. Beyond
that to the year 2050, the City would have the right of first purchase of the real estate.
The plan for redesign and expansion is designed by Tim Liddy in conjunction with Pete
Dye. The design is limited to the golf course only; the club house, swimming facility,
pro shop, maintenance facility and the tennis courts all remain as they are today. The
Special Use Application pertains to the golf course only.
That portion of the golf course which lies north of Woodland Lane will contain holes one
through five, eight and nine, seventeen and eighteen. Both holes 9 and 18 complete play
in front of the clubhouse and around two lakes to be constructed as a part of the redesign.
One of the lakes is approximately 6 acres in size and is a substantial body of water. The
lake has several purposes; one is for aesthetic enjoyment; another is that it adds to the
difficulty of play on holes 9 and 18; and very importantly, it also serves a drainage need.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 2
The lake will retain both on -site and off -site water and will release it at a controlled rate.
Both lakes will be in the area in which the drainage from 116 will be routed. The lakes
serve a valuable purpose in respect to the drainage needed as part of the 116 Street
project. Within the new area is a redesigned practice facility. It is important to note that
there is no entrance to the golf course from Westfield Boulevard.
The redesign and expansion offers Woodland the opportunity to respond to the impact
that would occur on the existing golf course from the 116 Street project for roadway
improvements. The redesign also permits Woodland to modernize its course and position
itself for the future.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following
appeared:
Bill Baines, 11195 Westfield Boulevard, commented that if the area must be developed,
the golf course is a good thing for the area. However, Mr. Baines would like to see a
buffer between the golf course and the homes.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following
appeared:
Charles Starkey, 501 East 114 Street, grew up on 1 I O th Street. Would like to see area
left as is- -there are a lot of animals in the area (bald eagle, coyotes, fox, squirrels, etc.)
Mr. Starkey expressed concern with the reality of bulldozing in the woods. Retention
ponds and drainage is a good side of the lakes; however, pumps sometimes run in the
summertime to keep the water level up; there are other effects too. By developing and
improving, there will be more traffic. Mr. Starkey would like the area left in its current
state.
Joseph Smirgala, 17 Woodland Lane, was not informed as to what would be built at the
corner of 116 and Keystone and would like more information.
Cookie Gilbert, Pine Valley Drive, questioned whether or not part of the woods will be
preserved between the golf course and the residential area for adequate screening. Ms.
Gilbert also expressed concern about the wildlife in the woods.
Rebuttal: Jim Nelson commented that tree preservation is an important part of the
redesign and expansion of the course. Certain parts of the 52 acres will be required to be
cleared in order to provide for the holes. The perimeter of the property is a very
important tree preservation area adjacent to Keystone. Trees will be placed sporadically
throughout the area north of Woodland Lane approximately 40 to 50 of the higher
quality trees will be tagged for re- planting throughout the redesign. The perimeter
treatment also exists around the western -most property line next to the driving range,
along Westfield Boulevard, and the north property line. The tree preservation plan
includes the preservation of the existing trees and replanting the higher quality trees and
selective clearing in the expansion area.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\bza2000aug
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition.
Questions and Comments from Board Members: Ms. Rice asked how the lakes would be
filled and level maintained. Ms. Rice stated concern with the use of wells and
surrounding water and wanted to know how the wildlife would be handled during the
clearing of the property.
Brian Sullivan of CDG Consulting, 1500 West Oak Street, Zionsville, clarified that the
lakes will be used to store storm water to be released at a controlled rate. The lakes will
be filled during off -peak hours for the irrigation of the course during the day, especially
at those times when there is little rain. The irrigation done during the day will be
accomplished by pumping the water out of the lakes. The lakes will be filled by a
combination of storm water and in times of drought, with wells that will pump ground
water into the lakes in the evening. The course currently has two wells that serve as
irrigation wells. Those wells are used during the day when it is hot and everyone is home
and water usage is high. The wells being replaced will be used during the evening when
there is much less demand on the ground water to fill the lakes. At the time the course
needs to be irrigated, the water will be pumped out of the lakes and not out of the ground
water.
Pat Rice asked if there would be a commitment made to remedy any problem with wells
running dry because of the high use of filling the lakes.
Jim Nelson responded that although he was not sure, he was reasonably certain that there
is a State Law in effect which prohibits the petitioner from impacting ground water level
of surrounding properties. Wells have been utilized in the past and to the petitioner's
knowledge, the utilization of those wells has had no impact to date on the surrounding
properties. The new lakes will enable Woodland to reduce the use of the wells. No
future impact on any neighboring property is foreseen. Woodland would be responsible
to take corrective action if there is any impact on neighboring properties and Mr. Nelson
will submit a letter to the Commission so stating.
Jim Nelson recommended contacting "Trapper Jack" who is very knowledgeable
regarding wildlife and the relocation of wildlife -the petitioner is willing to do that.
According to Brian Sullivan, DNR is reviewing the plan for that at this time. Jim Nelson
will render a letter report to the Board regarding the habitat situation.
The public hearing was then closed.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of SUA -6 -00, Woodland Country Club Golf Course.
APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed.
As a courtesy, Mr. Nelson reported to Mr. Smirgala the plans for 7 single tenant /retail
buildings that will be locating within Merchants Pointe at the southwest corner of 116
Street and Keystone Avenue, and at the corner of the extended AAA Way.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 4
8h. Hunter's Knoll Subdivision, Lot 9 (V- 86 -00)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 7.4.3(b):
Minimum Side Yard in order to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 3 feet
in order to install a swimming pool. The site is located at 13687 Eglin Drive.
The site is zoned S -2 /Residence.
Filed by James G. Tamara K. Kirages.
Tamara and Jim Kirages, 13687 Eglin Drive, Carmel appeared before the Board
requesting a Developmental Standards Variance to provide for the installation of a
swimming pool at their residence within the Hunter's Knoll Subdivision.
Ms. Kirages displayed photos of the site on the overhead with the proposed location of
the swimming pool, the fence line, and the property line drawn in. The swimming pool
will measure 14X32 and will be installed in the side yard area on the southwest side of
the home.
Ms. Kirages stated that the proposed plan for the swimming pool was shown to the
neighbors and there is significant positive support for the installation of the pool. Ms.
Kirages submitted a petition signed by the neighbors in support of the pool installation.
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:
Scott and Theresa Wheeler, Charing Cross, Carmel, absentee owners of the property
located at 13693 Eglin Drive, stated no objection to the pool the way the plan is laid out;
the Kirages have made several home improvements that have been outstanding to the
neighborhood. Mr. Mrs. Wheeler were concerned that if the variance is approved, that
it is approved for only the property line on the southwest side of the Kirages' property
and not on the opposite side between the Kirages property and the property owned by Mr.
Mrs. Wheeler.
John Molitor confirmed that the variance request is for a reduction in the sideyard setback
to 3 feet. There is an aggregate side yard requirement of 25 feet; therefore, if the
sideyard setback is reduced to 3 feet on one side, it would have to be 22 feet on the other
side. Currently, there is a total of 25 feet between the property line and the structure on
the opposite side. The approval would mean that another variance would be needed in
order to do anything more than currently filed in their request.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition to reduce the
side yard setback on the southwest property line to 3 feet.
Michael Mohr asked if there were any safety concerns with the pool being located at the
side of the house rather than the back yard of the property.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\bza2000aug
Laurence Lillig responded that a 20 foot drainage easement running at the rear of the
property prohibits the pool from being located to the rear of the property. There are only
two options for the placement of a pool on this property- -the southwest or the northeast
side. Nothing in the ordinance restricts the pool to the rear of the property.
Pat Rice asked about a safety cover for the pool.
Tamara Kirages stated that they are aware of the requirement of either a six foot fence or
an automatic safety cover. The petitioner is leaning towards a fence due to the privacy
issue.
The public hearing was then closed.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of V- 86 -00, Hunter's Knoll Subdivision, Lot 9, to
allow the placement of a swimming pool on the southwest side of the property,
seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed.
9h. Fidelity Keystone Office Park (V- 87 -00)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 2.4: Lots in
order to obtain Improvement Location Permits for a 4.386 acre property lacking
adequate frontage on a publicly dedicated street. The site is located at 580 and
600 East Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B -8 /Business.
Filed by Gordon D. Byers for FKOP, LLC.
Gordon Byers, attorney, Noblesville, Indiana appeared before the Board representing the
applicant. The petitioner is seeking a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 2.4
for a parcel located to the north of the Fidelity Bank Building /Campbell, Kyle Proffitt
building, and close to Keystone Way. The petitioner has gone before the Board of Public
Works with respect to road cut issues and also before the full Plan Commission for
ADLS review. The petitioner will be constructing two office buildings, approximately
41,000 square feet each, for a total dollar in excess of $5 million.
The site has been vacant for many years due to its location and lack of access. A portion
of the parcel was owned by the Wilfong Trust, the other half by Browning Investments.
Mr. Byers went over the history of the immediate area, including the building to the west,
now a bank and formerly the Grill Inn Restaurant. This tract is rectangular with a 50 foot
"L" that goes east to Keystone Way. The site to be developed only touches at a point.
Keystone Way is a dedicated, 50 foot public right -of -way, and touches the back tract at a
point. A 27 foot frontage strip running the length of the subject parcel has been created
by access easements provided to the City Engineering and the Department of Community
Services; the frontage strip gives the site to the rear, the subject of the variance, access to
Keystone Way.
In addition, a new access point is being created, by way of access easement, from the
middle of the site between the two banks, out to Carmel Drive. The Fidelity Bank
Building will then control the site and provide access out to Carmel Drive through the
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\bza2000aug
new roadway to be constructed. The new roadway improvement has been before the City
Engineer and the Carmel Board of Public Works Safety. The new roadway will be 36
feet wide, three lanes -two out /one in -tied into the improvement of Carmel Drive and the
traffic flow, and has been reviewed by the petitioner's traffic engineer and the City's
traffic engineer. The design has been a two -month review process by the City Engineer
and has received her blessing and approval. This will be the second ingress /egress to the
site, the first being access to Keystone Way, the publicly dedicated street. There is also
another way to access the site and that is through a 100 foot access easement recorded in
the late 1960's. The site actually has three points of ingress /egress, but for practical
purposes, it has two main points of ingress /egress.
This issue was first discovered in June, and the Developmental Standards Variance was
filed. This site has more frontage and access than most sites, (two to public ways) so that
from a police power perspective and fire access, etc. there is sufficient access. The
adjoining property owners have been noticed and do not have any objection and in fact
feel that the office building and roadway improvement will be a benefit.
The site is non platted, and is "land- locked" under the interpretation of Carmel's
Ordinance. By the fact that the City does not wish to accept additional right -of -way, the
parcel is non useable. Hence, the petitioner is requesting the Developmental Standards
Variance due to the practical difficulty.
Members of public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition.
Mr. Weinkauf opined that this is one of the worst intersections in Carmel and traffic
should not be allowed to turn left (east) onto Carmel Drive. A right turn only (west) onto
Carmel Drive would alleviate a lot of the traffic congestion at this location.
Gordon Byers commented that Carmel Drive will be improved and restrictions will be
put into place that will allow for a right turn only and preclude motorists from creating a
bottleneck. The lanes will be controlled by a structure in the middle. By the
configuration of Mohawk Hills, the site to Keystone, and Merchants Square Shopping
Center to the south, it is a very congested area. The traffic will be improved by the
initiation of restrictions and improvements, and a lot of congestion will be eliminated. A
loop road was explored as well as a stop light -the City approved two lanes out, one lane
in at this location. The road between the two bank buildings will be aligned and utilities
moved so that there are no off -sets and intersections will align.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Fidelity Keystone Office Park, V- 87 -00,
seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\bza2000aug
12h. College Park Baptist Church Expansion (SUA- 91 -00)
Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to construct a 15,000
square foot expansion. The site is located at 2606 West 96 Street. The site is
zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Miranda Simmons of Schenkel Shultz for College Park Baptist.
Miranda Simmons with Schenkel Shultz, 9100 Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, appeared
before the Board representing College Park Baptist Church. Also in attendance were
David Critchlow and Mark Calushi representing the College Park Baptist Church.
Approval is being requested to construct an addition to the existing building that is
greater than 10 The site is located at the northwest corner of Towne Road and 96
Street. The proposed construction area is currently a drop -off drive and asphalt parking.
Water and sanitary are currently being provided to the site; storm water will utilize the
existing storm sewer system and detention area to the southeast of the property.
Brian Hostetler of Schenkel Shultz stated that the addition to the church facility will be a
two story construction with a partial basement. The existing brick exterior will be
maintained. The height of the facility will match the existing sanctuary that was
approved in a previous Variance; the roof structure will be carried across and tied in with
the existing classroom wing on the northeast side. There is a limited use of new, exterior
insulation finish system on the canopy, with the majority being existing brick to match
the existing building. The color of the insulation system will more than likely match the
existing limestone coins that currently exist on the building. The building will be fully
sprinklered to match the existing; wood frame construction; and fiberglass shingles to
match the existing building.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no
one appeared.
Laurence Lillig spoke for the Department and recommended favorable consideration of
this petition.
Leo Dierckman asked to see renderings of the construction addition.
Michael Mohr moved for the approval of SUA- 91 -00, College Park Baptist Church
Expansion, seconded by Earlene Plavchak. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
13h -23h West Carmel Center, Block F (SU- 92 -00; V- 93 -00; V- 94 -00; V- 95 -00;
V- 96 -00; V- 97 -00; V- 98 -00; V- 100 -00; V- 101 -00; V- 102 -00)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval under Section 14.2: Permitted Special Uses
in order to establish a home improvement store on 15.00 acres. Petitioner also
seeks approval of the following Development Standards Variances:
V -93 -00 ZO 14.4.1: Building Height Building in excess of 35' tall
V -94 -00 ZO 23C.8.2(b) US 421 front yard in excess of 120'
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\bza2000aug
V -95 -00
ZO 23C.9(a)
Architectural design theme
V -96 -00
ZO 23C.9(f)
Entrance proportions
V -97 -00
ZO 23C.10.2(2)
East foundation plantings
V -98 -00
ZO 23C.10.2(2)
South foundation plantings
V -99 -00
ZO 23C.I I(f)
Front yard parking
V- 100 -00
ZO 25.7.02 -7(b)
3 signs
V- 101 -00
ZO 25.7.02 -7(c)
290 sq. ft. "The Home Depot"
V- 102 -00
ZO 25.7.02 -7(c)
72 square feet "Indoor Lumberyard"
The site is located southeast
of West 106
Street and Michigan Road. The site is zoned
B -3 /Business and is
located within the US
421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kerry Buckley of American Consulting
for Glendale Partners.
Kevin McKasson of Glendale Partners, 9864 Summer Lakes Drive, Carmel, appeared
before the Board requesting Variances for Developmental Standards as stated. ADLS
approval has been received from the Plan Commission for the Target Store. The
proposed plan is the 8 in the building development. The Home Depot Store will be
locating on the 15 acre parcel south of the Target location. The variances are
substantially the same as were necessary for the approval of the Target store.
The Carmel Zoning Ordinance allows for a building height of 35 feet; the petitioner is
proposing 39 feet. The maximum front yard requirement there is no frontage on
Michigan Road. The Ordinance allows for two rows of parking between a building and
the right -of -way. A mounding technique will be used to block the parking lot from sight.
In regard to the architectural theme, the proposed building is the 8 in the series of
buildings, and the code requires that it be of a "Federalist" style. The Home Depot store
incorporates the detailing of the limestone around the sides and at the back of the
building, essentially using the same materials as the previously approved Target store.
April Hensley, architect, explained the architectural requirements for the building. The
architectural guidelines are coming from a style indicated by Federalist or Georgian, and
with the size of the building, the entrances are thought to be of a proportionate design
rather than following the exact, architectural requirements to meet the style.
The rear and side foundation plantings are being requested for re- location. Rather than
along the back of the building, the plantings (same number and species of landscaping)
will be to the roadside part of the building. The petitioner has agreed with the
neighborhood association to add another row of landscaping on the "soon to be
developed" office portion on the other side of the road as well as some mounding features
to minimize the impact of the building on the neighborhood. A six foot berm and the
landscaping will be utilized to help block the parking lot.
The variance for the signs is for three wall signs rather than the 6 allowable and they have
all been reduced in sizes. The Home Depot sign will be 290 square feet; two small signs
of 72 square feet will recite "Indoor Lumberyard."
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 9
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of any one or all of the petitions;
the following appeared:
Brian Shapiro, 4610 Woodhaven Drive, Zionsville, spoke to the proposed project and its
location in the 421 Overlay Zone. Mr. Shapiro thought that the petitioner had done a
good job in maintaining the architectural spirit of the Ordinance and the greenbelt. The
members of the community definitely support the efforts of this petitioner and how the
project is being designed.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to any one or all of the
petitions; no one appeared.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of SU- 92 -00.
The public hearing was then closed on SU- 92 -00.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of SU- 92 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, seconded
by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of V -93 -00 for building
height.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 93 -00.
Michael Mohr moved for the approval of V- 93 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F,
seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of V -94 -00 to exceed the
maximum US 421 front yard.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 94 -00.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of V- 94 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, seconded
by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
The Department is recommending negative consideration of V -95 -00 regarding the
architectural theme of the 421 corridor. The Department does not believe that the design
of the building meets the requirements of the 421 architectural guidelines and the
architectural consultant has issued a letter that concurs with the Department's position.
Mr. McKasson was offered an opportunity to change the architectural design theme of the
proposed building. Mr. McKasson responded that the petitioner had worked with the
Department in incorporating the "Federalist' design theme. In a June 11 Special Study
Committee meeting, a letter was submitted from a consulting architect who stated all of
the differences they had with the Home Depot building as it related to "Federalist"
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 10
architectural style. Mr. McKasson was surprised that this particular building as well as
the six other buildings does not meet architectural guidelines.
April Hensley, architect, commented that portions of the "Federalist" style were
incorporated and utilized in the building -a building whose size and use is much different
than those that were created at the time the "Federalist" theme was developed. The basic
thoughts behind those styles have been used to create an architecture that can be used
today and picks up on those elements and makes an attractive, aesthetically pleasing
building for today's use.
Mr. Weinkauf asked if the petitioner were aware of the restrictions of the 421 Overlay
Zone prior to the architectural design of the building.
Mr. McKasson responded that he was aware of the Code, but thought they were doing an
excellent job in interpreting the architectural style into the 7 buildings that have been
built. The proposed building follows the Target building and the petitioner is planning to
use the same detail as presented to the Plan Commission Special Study Committee.
Pat Rice asked for clarification, since she was not aware that the Target store was not
acceptable under the ADLS review.
Leo Dierckman commented that the issues are the same with the proposed 8 building as
they were with the Target store. It would seem that the tone has already been set for the
area and the proposed building is definitely in line with what had been proposed for the
Target store.
Mr. McKasson maintained that he was not aware of any doubts as to the architectural
style of the other 7 buildings until the meeting of the Special Study committee.
The Department clarified the following. At the time the Target project was first
presented, a concern was expressed about the architecture. However, since there is no
architect on staff, the general feeling was that there was no professional "clout" to say
that this would require a variance of the architectural theme. The petitioner's architect
believes that this does meet the spirit of the Ordinance. As a follow up, petitions within
the 421 Overlay Zone are sent to the Department's architectural consultant for review by
professional architects. In this case, the consultant concurs with the Department's
assessment, that this design does not meet the architectural standards of the 421 Overlay
Zone requirement. This matter was originally raised with the Target store whose design
diverges from the other buildings.
Earlene Plavchak commented that what is before the Board is a giant warehouse. At the
time the "Federalist" architectural style evolved, no one built buildings such as this unless
it was to house an army- -there was no need for such a large building -it would have been
a garrison. Perhaps this is not the place to put this type of warehouse building because it
will not look like anything other than what it is -a giant warehouse.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 11
Laurence Lillig responded that when the 421 Overlay Ordinance was created, this was
taken into consideration and it set certain standards for breaking facades and dealing with
this in terms of materials and architecture. This is not something that is unanticipated by
the Ordinance, by any means, but it does set the standard.
Leo Dierckman commented that the scale of the proposed building is very difficult to
develop the concepts of the Overlay and the petitioner has made an effort to try to tie it in
with other buildings in the area.
Mr. McKasson clarified that the proposed building is approximately 125,000 square feet,
the Target building is approximately 175,000 square feet.
Earlene Plavchak was concerned about outside storage and materials that always seem to
be on the sidewalks for outside sales.
Mr. McKasson responded that outside storage was not allowed by the Ordinance, and no
variance will be requested for outside storage. The petitioner will commit to no outside
storage. Home Depot does have an outdoor nursery area, and the petitioner will make the
same commitment that Loew's made everything in the outdoor nursery area will be
contained within the area and not visible from outside. The petitioner will not be allowed
outside storage in any way.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 95 -00.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V- 95 -00, architectural design theme for West
Carmel Center, Block F, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 5 in favor, none
opposed.
The Department is recommending negative consideration of V- 96 -00, to alter the
required entrance proportions. The entrance proportions are set up to reflect the
architectural themes and styles specified in the Ordinance and this does not necessarily
accommodate the larger bays that are typically seen on modern groceries and home
improvement stores. The bay of doors on this particular building is wider than allowed
by Ordinance.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 96 -00.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of V- 96 -00, entrance proportions, West Carmel
Center, Block F, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed.
The Department is recommending negative consideration of V -97 -00 and V- 98 -00, to
reduce the foundation plantings on the east and south sides of the structure.
Kevin McKasson explained that the Code requires foundation plantings at the building.
Due to the fact that the plantings will not be seen by those persons it is designed to lessen
the impact, the foundation plantings have been relocated from the rear of the building and
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 12
front to a planting island. In addition to the plantings, 6 foot moundings have been added
to the landscape island.
Kerry Buckley of American Consulting commented that one reason for this variance is
that retailers find that foundation plantings tend to collect a lot of debris and the plantings
would be more attractive in a landscape area.
Ms. Plavchak asked for clarification of the variance -are the planting numbers being
reduced or is it being moved.
Laurence Lillig responded that the petitioner is relocating the plantings -the overall total
of planting materials on site is being met. The buildings essentially have three road
frontages, Commerce Drive to the east, 421 to the west, and an internal road. The
landscape requirements are intended to lessen the impact from rights -of -way of
commercial structures. The foundation plantings were meant to serve a purpose and to
soften the effect of the building at the ground level.
Leo Dierckman asked if there were some reason whey the adjacent neighborhood
representative was not in attendance, since he had appeared at previous hearings.
Mr. McKasson stated that Dr. Michael Dugan had been contacted, and the neighborhood
association was in favor of the proposal, based on commitments regarding landscaping.
The adjacent neighbors will appear at the ADLS hearings before the Plan Commission.
Mr. McKasson stated that at the time the Target store was developed, the petitioner
committed to landscaping on both sides of Commerce Drive. The petitioner also
committed to landscape the opposite side of 102n Street, and has agreed with a neighbor
to install a fence in order to screen the truck docks from the neighbors' view. The raised
mounds are part of the landscaping commitment.
Mr. McKasson also stated that the petitioner's landscape architect is working with the
City Urban Forester and no variance is being requested in regard to amount of
landscaping. The quantity of trees required will meet the requirements of the Ordinance.
Additional trees are being placed on the other side of Commerce Drive.
The public hearing was then closed on V -97 -00 and V -98 -00 to relocate the east and
south foundation plantings.
Pat Rice, moved for approval of V- 97 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, east
foundation plantings, with commitments as stated, seconded by Leo Dierckman.
APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed.
Michael Mohr moved for approval of V- 98 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, south
foundation plantings, with commitments as stated, seconded by Pat Rice.
APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 13
The Department is recommending negative consideration of V- 99 -00, to increase the
amount of front yard parking, 2 rows allowed, between the building and US 421.
Mr. McKasson explained that there is no room for frontage on Michigan Road. Rather
than add more parking, a 6 foot landscape berm with trees has been added to help
minimize the impact of a parking lot.
Mr. Weinkauf asked what the situation would be if the petitioner followed the Ordinance
without the variance. Mr. McKasson responded that according to the Ordinance, no more
than 2 rows of parking are allowed between the right -of -way and the building.
Terry Jones spoke for the Department. At the time the 421 Overlay Ordinance was being
drafted, the intent was to reverse the parking design -to push buildings to the front and
place parking to the rear of the building. This has been an issue with all retail
development projects that want parking in the front of their buildings. The 421 Corridor
requires that the parking be placed to the rear in order to create a streetscape.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 99 -00.
Pat Rice moved for approval of V- 99 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, front yard
parking, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed.
In regard to V- 100 -00 for 3 signs, the Department is recommending favorable
consideration by virtue of the fact that the petitioner does have frontage on three streets.
In regard to Docket V- 101 -00 for a 290 square foot Home Depot sign, the Department is
recommending negative consideration. Explanation: The ordinance for Special Use
allows a 40 square foot sign; the freeway chart for signs off 421 would allow 115 square
feet.) In regard to Docket V- 102 -00 for a 72 square foot "Indoor Lumberyard" sign, the
Department is recommending negative consideration and recommending instead that the
sign be limited to 40 square feet allowed for a special use sign.
Mr. McKasson clarified the petitioner's position for signage. The signage has been
reduced to 3 signs, one being Home Depot, one advertising the Indoor Lumberyard, and
one advertising the nursery (40 square feet.) The Home Depot sign is requested to be
290 square feet.
Pat Rice commented that one of the concerns on the Target signage was that the sign was
too large in proportion to the size of the building.
Kevin McKasson stated that the mass of the building, the front exterior, is basically the
same as the Target store, and the signs would be proportionate with the building.
Chuck Weinkauf commented that the Home Depot store is a point of destination, rather
than a happenstance trip. A 115 square foot Home Depot sign would be significant
enough on a 125,000 square foot building to define location.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 14
There was discussion on the signage regarding the lettering, the logo, and the design
proportionality. This particular Home Depot store does not have an orange roof- -it has
been eliminated at this location.
The nursery sign lettering is 2 feet in height, the overall sign is less than 40 square feet.
The lettering height for the Indoor Lumberyard sign is 2 feet. The Home Depot Sign
letters are 5 feet tall.
There was further discussion as to the signage, what is proposed and what Mr. McKasson
is authorized to commit to.
Mr. Molitor suggested that the Board Table V- 100 -00, V- 101 -00 and V- 102 -00 until such
time as a definitive package could come before the Board later in the evening.
Otherwise, these items could be continued until the September meeting.
Ms. Rice was in agreement with Mr. Molitor's suggestion and recommended the
petitioner consider doing so.
Kevin McKasson stated a willingness to commit to the Home Depot Sign lettering being
no taller than 4 feet, and not to exceed 188 square feet.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 100 -00.
Pat Rice moved for the approval of V- 100 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, 3 signs.
APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 101 -00.
Michael Mohr moved for the approval of V- 101 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F,
"The Home Depot" sign not to exceed 188 square feet and a maximum height of 4
feet, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 102 -00.
Michael Mohr moved for the approval of V- 102 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F,
"Indoor Lumberyard" sign not to exceed 72 square feet, seconded by Leo Dierckman.
APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed.
24h -25h. Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1 (V- 103 -00; V-
104-00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 3.7: Vision
Clearance on Corner Lots and 25.7.02- 11(e): Location to reduce the setback
from right -of -way from ten feet to 0.93 feet on Old Meridian Street and 8.28 feet
on West Carmel Drive. The site is located on the southeast corner of West
Carmel Drive and Old Meridian Street. The site is zoned M- 3/Manufavturing.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Old Meridian Investments.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 15
Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, and Mark Monroe of The Reis Law Firm
appeared before the Board representing the applicant. The center identification sign is
located.
The current right -of -way for Old Meridian Street is 50 feet from the center line. The
existing pavement includes a through lane and a right -turn lane. The pavement is 27.66
feet from the closest point of the sign and substantial right -of -way exists between the
pavement and the sign.
The height of the sign is five feet, but because of the grade of the intersection, the vision
perspective is approximately four feet. The sign went through an extensive approval
process and was in advance of the Old Meridian Street Ordinance. The sign and fencing
on the sign create a streetscape and also screen the parking area between the building and
the right -of -way.
Design of the sign: The aluminum, individual letters are back -lit; the "Old Meridian"
portion of the sign is back -lit, the "Professional Center" portion is not back -lit. There is
landscaping around the sign at the base. According to Mr. Reis, the sign does not
interfere with motorist sight /vision. Except for the practical difficulties of dealing with
how the site has been developed with the Old Meridian Street future improvements and
the streetscape provided, the sign is in no way an adverse effect on the adjoining property
owners or the area.
The petitioner is requesting approval of the sign at this time.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared.
Charles Weinkauf asked the petitioner to address whether or not the sign was established
without a permit.
Mr. Reis responded that the sign was apparently established without a permit. Mr. Reis
was asked to review the signage for his client and determined that the signage required a
variance.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Variance petitions were made for an existing sign
established without a sign permit. If a site plan review had been done in conjunction with
an application for the sign permit, there would be no need for the variances. The
Department is recommending that the after the -fact Variance petitions be given negative
consideration and that the sign be required to be re- located in accordance with the
requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
For further clarification, Laurence Lillig explained that every sign permit application is
required to be accompanied by a site plan that shows the distance of the sign from the
right -of -way. The application is reviewed to determine whether or not it complies with
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 16
the Ordinance, and whether or not it is outside the "Vision Triangle." Since there was no
application for a sign permit, the review was never accomplished.
Mr. Weinkauf commented that he had visited the site and felt that this particular sign is
aesthetically pleasing. In this particular case, Mr. Weinkauf felt that the sign was
extremely setback, complements the fencing, and was not a problem with vision
clearance.
According to the Department, the sign has been in existence for at least two months,
perhaps more. With respect to the right -of -way, there is currently a plan being
considered for the entire corridor. Even though the streets, as currently designed, may
not have a vision problem, the streets as they are proposed to be re- designed will be four
lanes and at some points, a median, and the pavement widths will be extended out and
may pose a vision obstacle at that time.
Ms. Rice commented that the sign had been part of a package submission for the Plan
Commission, and thought it had been approved some time ago. Mr. Lillig responded that
in a lot of instances, the petitioner believes that ADLS approval is an approval for
signage -it is not.
Mr. Molitor commented that the City's plans for roadway improvements do not
contemplate additional right -of -way acquisition. That may not be firm or definite, but
additional right -of -way is not anticipated at this time. The Board may wish to consider
granting a variance for a period of three years; this would allow the City time to complete
the highway improvements -the issue could then be revisited.
Mr. Weinkauf commented that the utility box, a fire hydrant, and two telephone poles at
this site cause more obstruction to the line of sight than the sign does.
Mr. Molitor stated that if the City is fairly certain that the street improvements will not
require the sign to be moved, the Board could ask for a commitment from the petitioner
that upon request from the City Engineer, if the City Engineer deems the sign to be an
osbtruction, the petitioner would return to the Board of Zoning Appeals for review of the
commitment and relocation of the sign.
Pat Rice said she could not imagine the City would require right -of -way that the sign
would interfere with, since the sidewalks are already in place.
Laurence Lillig reported that the property was platted last year as part of the project
under the Old Thoroughfare Plan. Many projects along Carmel Drive are currently being
asked for an additional 10 feet of right -of -way. If it is needed on this particular property,
10 feet additional will bring it right to the sign.
Mr. Reis volunteered that the applicant has already dedicated the additional 10 feet on
Carmel Drive. It is believed that the sidewalk is relatively close to the streetscape being
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 17
proposed northward. The large utility box controls the traffic signal and is under the
Street Department maintenance /control. When this site was platted, there was a lot of
discussion between the developer and the Plan Commission. The signage went through
the ADLS process and all of the issues were reviewed and discussed; however, a permit
was never issued for the sign.
If, at a future date, there is a need for additional right -of -way, the petitioner would have
to relocate the sign and come into compliance with the Ordinance. As it exists now, Mr.
Weinkauf did not see a problem.
John Molitor recommended an additional commitment from the petitioner in the event the
City would require additional right -of -way; the City would not pay for re- location of sign
and would be done at expense of owner, since the sign was initially installed unlawfully.
There were additional questions regarding the placement of the sign and the location on
the plan of the signage. The location of the sign on the plan does not constitute an
application for a sign permit at that location.
Leo Dierckman suggested granting a variance for a period of 2 years, thereby allowing an
opportunity for future roadway improvements. The petitioner can return to the Board.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V- 103 -00; and V- 104 -00, Carmel Science
Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1, for a period of two years with mandatory refiling at
that time by the petitioner, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 5 in favor none
opposed.
26h -27h. Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1 (V- 105 -00; V-
106-00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section 25.7.01 -2:
Identification Sign in order to establish a sign with a logo totaling 45% of the sign
area and Section 25.7.02 -9(b): Number Type to place two signs on one
frontage. The site is located on the southeast corner of West Carmel Drive and
Old Meridian Street. The site is zoned M- 3Manufacturing.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Old Meridian Investments.
Paul G. Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel appeared before the Board representing Old
Meridian Investments, limited partnership. As in the prior docket item, the buildings are
in place. Currently, a tenant occupies most of the building and is seeking signage for an
office suite. The building has frontage on Old Meridian Street as well as Carmel Drive,
and would be allowed one wall sign per frontage under the Ordinance.
The petitioner is requesting a variance for the placement of a second sign facing Carmel
Drive. The first sign reads "American Health Network;" the second sign reads "Carmel
Physicians" and is recessed in the doorway leading to the doctors' offices.
The Sign Design: Aluminum letters, backlit for the American Health Network sign and
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 18
no illumination for the Carmel Physicians sign. It is important for those doctors
practicing within the American Health Network to retain identity to Carmel and they
have thus requested the second sign.
The second variance is for the size of the logo on the American Health Network Sign
from 25% to 45% of the sign area. The color of the logo is the same as the American
Health Network, silvery appearance. The petitioner feels that the logo is proportionate
to the size of the sign area and complements the sign package for this building in
particular and the complex in general.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition, no
one appeared.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending negative consideration of
Docket No. V- 105 -00 to increase the maximum sign area for the size of logo. The
Department is recommending favorable consideration of Docket No. V- 106 -00 to
establish two wall signs on the north facade.
Paul Reis commented that the logo constitutes a part of the sign and the size of the logo is
incorporated within the overall "American Health Network," who has dictated the size of
the star.
Pat Rice's opinion was that the Star is too big! Ms. Rice expressed support with the
Department's recommendation. For informational purposes, the color of the star, per Mr.
Reis, is white.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V- 105 -00, Carmel Science Technology Park,
Block 17, Lot 1, for a logo totaling 45% of the sign area. MOTION DENIED 1 in
favor 4 opposed.
Earlene Plavchak moved for approval of V- 106 -00, Carmel Science Technology
Park, Block 17, Lot 1, to place two signs on one frontage. APPROVED 5 in favor
none opposed.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:45 PM.
Charles W. Weinkauf, President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 19
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 20