Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 04-28-03gIVIV�'�' of CAq`� C i ty of arme Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, April 28, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting was held at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of Carmel City Hall on April 28, 2003. Those members in attendance: Leo Dierckman, Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak, Pat Rice, and Charles Weinkauf, thereby establishing a quorum. Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Planning Administrators Laurence Lillig, Jon Dobosiewicz, and Angie Butler. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mrs. Rice moved to approve the minutes from the March 24 and March 27, 2003 meetings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5 -0. Mr. Molitor reported that pending litigation was discussed at the Executive Session prior to this meeting. He also reported that one bill passed the Legislature which does make some reforms in the judicial review process from the Board of Zoning Appeals decisions. This is legislature he has worked on for the last couple of years with Senator Murray Clark. It clarifies that remonstrators are not required to be named as litigants in the judicial review proceedings and it makes a couple of other clarifying changes. Mr. Mohr thanked Mr. Lillig for his years of service he has given to this Board and expressed appreciation for the leadership he has given the Department and his help in helping the Board get through their busy, busy agendas. Mr. Lillig will have long range planning duties in the Department. Mr. Lillig pointed out the revised agenda. Added to the agenda was Item 10j Lakes at Hayden Run, Section 1, Block A. He reported it does not look like there will be business for the May meeting, barring any tabled or continued items out of this meeting. Two items require suspension of rules for period of notice. Those are Items 7 -9j First Indiana Bank for 24 -day notice and Item 10j Lakes at Hayden Run for 10 -day notice. The Department is recommending the rules be suspended to allow this items to be heard at this meeting. Mr. Weinkauf moved to suspend the rules on those agenda items so the petitioners will not have to sit through the entire meeting without knowing the Board will do that. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 5 -0. Page 1 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 2 of 12 I Public Hearing lj. Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 12, Lot 5 Linc Systems (V -3 -03) Petitioner seeks a Development Standards Variance of Section 20D.04.06 in order to build an addition within sixty (60) feet of the west lot line. The site is located at 1402 Chase Court. The site is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing. Filed by Adam L. DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates for Linc Systems. Present for the Petitioner: Adam DeHart, Project Manager for Keeler -Webb. He represents KAT LLC, which is the ownership company for the business that is in this particular facility known as Linc Systems. A diagram was shown. The project was originally built in 1997 on Chase Court. Plan Commission gave approval for the Development Plan Amendment and ADLS Amendment. They are requesting a rear setback yard variance. The setback requires three times the building height on the rear property line. The property is odd shaped and the building is rectangular to maximize the use of the facility for distribution and warehousing. All the industrial uses will face toward the industrial park and landscaping bufferyard will be maintained to the west. All materials and colors will match the existing building. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. The Plan Commission approved Docket 187 -02 DP Amend /ADLS Amend for this site. The Department recommends favorable consideration of Docket V -3 -03 consistent with the aforementioned approval and subject to satisfactory resolution of any outstanding TAC issues. Mr. Dierckman pointed out that the Plan Commission did spend quite a bit of time on this project and did feel that it was well thought out. Mr. Weinkauf moved to approve V -3 -03, Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 12, Lot 5 Linc Systems. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5 -0. 2 -4j. Carmel United Methodist Church (V- 11 -03; V- 12 -03; V- 13 -03) Petitioner seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V -11 -03 §25.07.02- 05(b)(i) three (3) institutional signs V -12 -03 §25.07.02- 05(b)(ii) two (2) changeable copy signs V -13 -03 §25.07.02- 05(c)(i) two (2), 56- square -foot institutional ground signs The site is located at 621 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. Filed by Joel Hall of Sign -a -Rama for Carmel United Methodist Church. Present for the Petitioner: Joel Hall, Sign -a -Rama, 616 Station Drive, Carmel, IN. Also present was Nancy Leonard from the Carmel United Methodist Board of Trustees. Nancy Leonard, 33 -year resident of Carmel. The new addition was built last year. They had been waiting to put a new sign on corner after the widening of the intersection. The sign will be visible from Range Line Road and City Center Drive and will be compatible with other city signs. Page 2 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 3 of 12 Mr. Hall showed a diagram of the sign. The sign will be positioned at an angle so traffic from both sides could see the sign. It is a v- shaped sign of two brick walls 90 degrees to each other and parallel to each street. The brick wall is four feet tall in the middle with five -feet brick columns on each end. On each column is a copper roof, similar to the steeple that is on the church. They are trying to mimic other brick signs in the area and match the existing church. On the front of the wall is white text that says Carmel United Methodist Church. There is an illuminated cabinet on the end of the wall that is a changeable reader board sign to advertise services, etc. Each side would be the same. In February they received favorable ADLS Amend approval. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. February 4, 2003, the Plan Commission's Special Study Committee approved Docket 16 -03 ADLS Amend for this project. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of V -11 -03 through V -13 -03 consistent with the Plan Commission's approval. Mr. Mohr asked what type of reader board? Mr. Hall replied that it is an illuminated cabinet with a white face and the lettering slides in the tracks. It is not electronic and lighted in the back. Mr. Weinkauf asked about the hours of illumination. Ms. Leonard said they had not addressed that issue, but that they would probably leave it on so that anyone driving by could read the sign. Mr. Weinkauf stated that it probably wouldn't affect a residential area. Mr. Hall said the light output at the property line does not exceed the ordinance requirements. It is lit with some fluorescent tubes. Mrs. Rice was concerned with the brightness output. Mr. Hall did not anticipate a bright glaring light. Mr. Mohr expressed concern about glaring along Range Line Road. Mr. Lillig pointed out that Exhibit A and the minutes from the Special Study state it is flush mounted and not illuminated. Ms. Leonard stated that if the light would be brighter than what is proper, it would be toned down. Mr. Weinkauf asked if Plan Commission minutes were correct, how would that affect tonight's vote on an illuminated sign? Page 3 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Lillig stated the ordinance would allow the sign to be illuminated. The Department is recommending that the variances be approved consistent with the Plan Commission's approval. So if there is some question as to whether they thought the changeable copy was going to be illuminated, it could go back to the Special Study committee for clarification on that point and their decision would be what would rule in that instance. If the cabinet is to be illuminated, he would suggest it be similar to the Walgreens sign on the corner of Executive Drive and Range Line Road. The background would be dark with white letters so that it does not have the glowing cabinet effect. Mrs. Plavchak stated that from the packet it says ground spot lighting will illuminate the lettering and the cabinet will be internally illuminated. Mr. Mohr stated that based on the Plan Commission, it was floodlight illuminated. So it sounds like there are three different ways this has been presented. Mr. Weinkauf stated that the petitioner wishes to have the petition before the BZA exactly the way Mrs. Plavchak just read from the packet. That is the lettering will be ground lit and the lettering in the changeable copy cabinet will be backlit. Then it will fall back to the Plan Commission for clarification. Ms. Leonard stated that was correct. Mr. Weinkauf moved to approve V- 11 -03, V -12 -03 and V- 13 -03, Carmel United Methodist Church. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and each variance was APPROVED 5 -0. 5j. Old Town Apartments, Robinson (V- 24 -03) Petitioner seeks a Development Standards Variance of Section 16.04.08 (B) in order to establish three multi family units each with less than eight hundred square feet of floor area. The site is located at 740 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -5 /Business within the Old Town Overlay Zone. Filed by William E. Wendling, Jr., of Campbell Kyle Proffitt for PAR Enterprises. Present for the Petitioner: Bill Wendling, 650 E. Carmel Drive, Suite 9400, Carmel, IN. Mr. Robinson bought the property and hired Mr. Allen to do remodeling. Mr. Allen made an application and presented to DOGS. It was indicated it was going to be a 3 -unit apartment /multiple family building. That is not unusual in that area of Carmel. It came to the City's attention that a Special Use was not requested and that was necessary in a B -5 zoning. Mr. Robinson was to rectify the situation and a Special Use application was made. It was missed that there were fewer square feet per unit than what was allowed in that zoning. These three units are less than the required 800 square feet. They should also have asked for a Developmental Standard Variance for the less than 800 square feet. There has been history since that and a lawsuit has been ongoing. A mistake was made and tonight hopefully can get the issue resolved. The next door neighbor, Chuck Phillips had some concerns. Some issues have been resolved. Mike Walsh, Mr. Phillips, attorney, has tried to resolve the issues between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Robinson. They have entered into an agreement whereby there will be a privacy fence erected by Page 4 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Phillips. Mr. Robinson will be responsible for any damage caused by his tenants. He will be moving the drive and have a separate entrance for the property. There has been discussion with the City Engineer to see if the City would approve a dual or common drive. They are taking whatever steps are necessary to get this accomplished. Pictures were shown. Three letters had been received from residents in favor of this request. The packet shows the property when it was first built. The landscaping has grown and been in existence for several years. Pictures were shown of the care Mr. Robinson gives of his houses. Tonight's request is for the Developmental Standard Variance. Remonstrance: Public in favor: William Sanders, Jr., First Avenue NE and an office on Gradle Drive. He has lived within 200 feet of this property for eleven years. Three of his neighbors with single family detached homes have less than 800 square feet, 653 and 764 square feet. Less than 800 square feet is not atypical in Old Town Carmel. Houses range from less than 800 square feet to 3500 square feet in the area. Mr. Robinson's two houses in the area are aesthetically pleasing. He corrects any issues that arise and there are no problems with management, upkeep or maintenance. Opposition: None Mr. Lillig turned the Department Report over to Mr. Molitor. Mr. Molitor stated that the Board has heard numerous staff comments and suggestions about this case previously. The denial of the Special Use is still pending in litigation before the Courts. He and Mr. Wendling reached an understanding that the outcome of this variance decision, assuming it were negative, would not be presented to the Court. The Board is free to decide if this variance is appropriate. It will not effect litigation if this variance were denied. Mr. Weinkauf asked Mr. Molitor to clarify that one of the issues in the denial of Special Use involved the fact that only one of the three apartments in this home was less then 800 square feet. Mr. Molitor stated that all three of the units are smaller than 800 square feet. That was one of the primary topics of discussion of the Special Use discussion. Mr. Weinkauf wanted to know how this variance today would affect the fact that the Board did not approve the Special Use several years ago. Mr. Molitor stated that the Board's position in the litigation is that the Petitioner needed to request this variance in order to be eligible for approval of the Special Use. You cannot get a Special Use under our ordinance unless you are in compliance with all the Development Standards in the ordinance. Since the 800 -foot rule is one of the Development Standards, it was impossible for this development to be in compliance unless they received a variance from this Board. The Petitioner did not think he needed to request the variance, that the Court should have mandated the approval of the Special Use. This was an effort to get the issue in front of the Board as to whether this property should have a variance from the 800 -foot rule. Page 5 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 6 of 12 Mr. Weinkauf wanted more information on the square footage of the apartments involved. Mr. Wendling stated that the first floor has two units, one at 520 square feet and the other at 508 square feet. The second floor unit is 588 square feet. When the Special Use was filed, no one thought to file a Development Standard Variance because of the small square footage. At the January 2000 meeting, it became apparent the Board was concerned with the small square footage. After a discussion with Mr. Molitor, the best way to resolve this is to get approval of a Developmental Standard Variance. Mrs. Rice asked if the variance was approved tonight, what would that do to the Special Use? Mr. Molitor responded that the Petitioner would probably submit a request to settle the lawsuit and grant the Special Use, having eliminated the primary factor that prevented the approval of the Special Use in the first place. Mrs. Plavchak asked if there was any limit to how many people would be living in these units? Pat Robinson, 3277 Smokey Ridge Circle, Carmel, IN. To date he believed he only had three people living there. Basically he rents to single people, mainly because of noise. He would never have more then two per bedroom (that is in his contract). Mrs. Rice asked if there was a State law limiting two adults per bedroom? Mr. Molitor stated he was not familiar with any State law on that topic. There are certainly Federal laws that relate to discrimination. Mr. Weinkauf commended Mr. Robinson on the way his apartments look. He questioned how the ordinance relates to other multiple family residences in Carmel with one bedroom? Are those apartments more than 800 square feet or are they not governed by the same statutes? Mr. Lillig responded that each zoning district has its own minimum square footages. The B -5 and also the B -3, which was the district that was mistakenly put on the building permit, both require a minimum of 800 square feet for a multiple family residence. Not every multiple family district has that same minimum requirement. Some require slightly more and others allow smaller units. Mr. Weinkauf asked for an example of a smaller unit. What is a typical single one bedroom apartment in Mohawk Trails apartments? Mr. Lillig did not know on a project -by- project basis what the existing apartment complexes have available. He could go through the ordinance and find the requirements. Mr. Molitor stated the R -5 district allows up to 12 units per acre. There is no standard with regard to the square footage of each unit. Mrs. Rice had questions regarding the parking plan. It looks like 5 spaces. If there were two cars per unit, that could be six cars. Page 6 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 7 of 12 Mr. Wendling stated that was correct, but street parking is permitted and there is a two -car garage in back. Mrs. Rice would like restrictions for number of cars. Mr. Wendling stated they could limit tenant cars, but if someone comes to visit they can't limit that. Mrs. Rice asked about the property line and the common driveway or individual driveways with a common entrance. What is the issue? Mr. Wendling stated that Mr. Phillips does not want people trespassing onto his property. He shared a picture. Mr. Robinson's property has the paved drive and an extension in back for parking. He is assuming Mr. Phillips is going to put up a fence with reflectors to keep people from backing into his property. Discussion followed regarding cars and parking. Mr. Mohr asked Mr. Molitor if it is possible to tie this variance to the owner of the property? Mr. Molitor stated that the grant of a variance or special use cannot be made personal to the petitioner. It can be limited in the amount of time. Mr. Dierckman reviewed the issues and stated Mr. Robinson's properties are well maintained and this should be approved. Mr. Lillig stated that in the zoning ordinance there are three districts that require a minimum of 600 square feet, the R -4, B- I and B -2. All other districts that allow multiple family housing appear to have a minimum of 800 square feet, except the R -5, which does not stipulate minimum square feet for the dwelling units. The Old Town Overlay was not in effect when this was heard the last time, therefore this development would have required six parking spaces. By virtue of the fact that it is now within the Old Town Overlay, that is now reduced to three parking spaces. Mr. Weinkauf moved to approve V- 24 -03, Old Town Apartments, Robinson. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5 -0. 6j. East 96 Street Auto Park, Lot 1 Tom Wood Lexus (V- 35 -03) Petitioner seeks a Development Standards Variance of Section 25.07.02 -08(b) in order to establish three (3) identification signs on the south facade. The site is located at 4710a East 96 Street. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. Filed by Sherry L. Marchbanks of A Sign -by- Design for Tom Wood Lexus. Present for the Petitioner: Sherry Marchbanks, 5008 W. 96 Street, Indianapolis, IN and Don Miller also with A Sign -by- Design. Tom Wood Lexus is moving their facility from one end of 96 Street to the other end of 96 Street. A sight plan was shown of the new building. The variance is for three signs instead of the one allowed. The signs will be constructed of day -night Page 7 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 8 of 12 plex. During the day they will be black. The service sign is to identify the service area during the daytime. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. On April 3, 2003, the Plan Commission's Special Study Committee approved Docket 52 -03 ADLS Amendment for this site. The Department recommends favorable consideration of this Docket consistent with the Plan Commission's approval of the aforementioned docket. Mr. Weinkauf asked if the service sign did not need to be lit, but would they prefer to have it lit to be consistent? Ms. Marchbanks stated they did not want to push their luck, but would appreciate that. They would need to put it up non illuminated until the cabinet is built. Mr. Lillig stated the Special Study Committee would need to sign off on the change since that is a change from the package they approved. They might be able to go back for a quick re -look at the next meeting without having to file under a new number. The Board agreed that would be more consistent. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve V -35 -03 East 96 Street Auto Park, Lot 1 Tom Wood Lexus with the prior approval of the Special Study Committee if they wish to light the service sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weinkauf and APPROVED 5 -0. 7 -9j. Town of Bethlehem, Lots 9- 10(part); Warren Phelps Addition, Lot 15(part) First Indiana Bank (V- 36 -03; V- 37 -03; V- 38 -03) Petitioner seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V -36 -03 §25.07.02 -13(a) ground identification sign V -37 -03 §25.07.02 -13(b) two (2) identification signs V -38 -03 §25.07.02 -13(e) <5' from Range Line Road right -of -way The site is located at 20 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -2 /Business within the Old Town District Overlay Zone. Filed by John K. Smeltzer of Bose McKinney Evans for First Indiana Bank. Present for the Petitioner: Steve Granner, Zoning Consultant, Bose McKinney Evans, 600 E. 96 Street, Suite 500, Indianapolis, IN. Also present was Ken Turchi, Senior Vice President with First Indiana Bank. First Indiana Bank has purchased Metro Bank and has inherited all its branches. In the process of acquiring those branches, they need to change the signage. Pictures were shown. In addition to the ADLS approval from the Plan Commission, because they are in the Old Town Overlay District, they need the variances for the sign ordinance. The only signs permitted in the District in the ordinance are suspended signs, projecting signs or porch signs. The face will be replaced on the non conforming ground sign, which is in the right -of -way and Page 8 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 9 of 12 on the ATM machine. The parking lot sign will be removed and replaced with conforming signs that the Plan Commission has approved. Mr. Mohr asked if the current Metro Bank signs were illuminated and currently in use? Mr. Granner replied that both the ground sign and the ATM sign were illuminated. Mr. Turchi replied that he thought the lighting was in use and First Indiana Bank planned to illuminate them. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. On April 3, 2003, the Plan Commission Special Study Committee approved Docket 55 -03 ADLS Amend for this site. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of Dockets V -36 -03 through V -38 -03 consistent with the Plan Commission's approval of that Docket. He asked if the blue on the sign was opaque or translucent? Mr. Granner responded that it is translucent. Mr. Lillig stated that if the Board has a concern about the brightness of the sign, they might consider an opaque blue rather than a translucent. Mr. Weinkauf had a concern about the non conforming ground sign being in the right -of -way after some property was taken for the Range Line Road right -of -way. Is there any other reason it is non conforming? Mr. Lillig responded that today it is closer to the required Range Line Road right -of -way. The zoning ordinance should be drafted in such a way that this site would be allowed the types of signs that would be allowed for a single- tenant building, but the actual references in the ordinance point nowhere. That is a problem that the Department will be fixing with an ordinance that is currently before the Plan Commission. Discussion followed regarding the defect in the sign ordinance. Mr. Weinkauf was concerned from the picture that the bottom part of the sign protrudes into the walkway area and could be a potential hazard for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Granner stated that it is the angle of the picture and the sign will not be replaced, only the face will be changed. If the ordinance were corrected, this sign would still need a variance because it is too close to the right -of -way and there will be two identification signs. Mr. Granner stated that the Special Study Committee decided that First Indiana Bank had inherited the sign and all they would be doing is replacing the face. The new sign will have less Page 9 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 10 of 12 illumination because it is blue instead of white. It is the standard First Indiana Bank trademark sign. Discussion followed regarding the brightness of the sign and its location. This may be the opportunity to make the necessary changes and move the sign. Moving the sign into compliance would place it in the exit driveway and hide it by the building itself or it would need to be a wall sign on the south facade. Mr. Turchi stated the sign is the same as other branches with the same design. It doesn't throw off much light and it is not completely translucent. A white sign with blue letters is too bright and this design works better. They agreed to tone it down if it is too bright. The ATM is used at night and the lit signs help to locate it. Mrs. Rice moved to approve V- 36 -03; V- 37 -03; V- 38 -03, First Indiana Bank with the stipulation that the light will be toned down if it is too bright. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and each variance was APPROVED 4 -1 with Mr. Weinkauf casting the opposing votes. l0j. Lakes Hayden Run, Section 1, Block A (SUA -39 -03 (SU- 147 -02b)) Petitioner seeks to amend the approval granted for Docket No. SU- 147 -02 in order to construct a thirty -foot wide pool. The site is located at 13174 Roma Bend. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Estate. Filed by Thomas L. Kutz of Centex Homes. Present for the Petitioner: Tom Kutz, 6602 E. 75 Street, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN. This petition is to change the width of the pool from the approved thirty -two feet to a width of thirty feet. The new overall square footage of the pool will be 2,250 square feet with 75 feet in length. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. The Board approved the Special Use for this on August 26, 2002, with several conditions. Among those conditions were the 75 feet in length, a minimum depth of 3 feet 6 inches, a minimum width of 32 feet. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition. Mr. Weinkauf asked for clarification for why the pool needs to be changed from 32 to 30 feet wide. Mr. Kutz stated the main reason was when a pool exceeds 30 feet in width they would have to go from a skimmer system to filtrate the pool to a gutter system, by State Law. For this pool it would increase the cost by about $60,000. They will still be able to have four lanes for races. Mr. Weinkauf appreciated their willingness to cooperate with the Board's previous requests. The normal USA swimming lane is 8 feet, so he had taken that measurement. Page 10 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Lillig stated the Board would only be voting on SUA- 39 -03. The second Docket is what they were ask to use for the notice, so that anyone could the find the item. This amends the one condition. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve SUA- 39 -03, Lakes Hayden Run, Section 1, Block A. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weinkauf and APPROVED 5 -0. Mr. Dierckman left the meeting. K. Old Business There was no Old Business on the April 28, 2003, agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals. L. New Business 1L. East 96 Street Office Campus Kirsch Kirsch (UV- 176 -00c) Petitioner seeks approval of a revised Landscape Plan for the southeast building. The site is located at 2930 East 96 Street. The site is zoned S -2 /Residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Kirsch Kirsch. Present for the Petitioner: Larry Kemper, Nelson Frankenberger, 302 E. 96 Street, Indianapolis, IN. Kirsch Kirsch request to modify a landscape plan, which was previously approved in connection with a Use Variance obtained by Paragus Partners to permit development of the real estate for office uses. An aerial illustration was shown. They would like enhance the landscaping and either remove or relocate certain trees that were part of the previously approved plan and are anticipated to be too large for the location. The Department and Scott Brewer, the Urban Forester, have reviewed the revised landscape plans and both have determined that it meets the scope of the prior approved plan. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. The Department has reviewed this, the Urban Forester has approved it, and the Department is recommending favorable consideration. Mr. Weinkauf moved to approve UV- 176 -00c, East 96 Street Office Campus Kirsch Kirsch. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 4 -0. M. Adiourn Mr. Dierckman rejoined the Board. Mr. Molitor stated there was a need for an Executive Session and it could be scheduled for the regular May 27 date. It was decided to have a lunch meeting at noon on Tuesday, Page 11 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals April 28, 2003 Page 12 of 12 March 27, 2003, with Mr. Molitor providing the lunch and Mrs. Rice providing the dessert. Mr. Dierckman moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weinkauf and APPROVED 5 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. Michael Mohr, President Connie Tingley, Secretary Page 12