Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Approval InformationOctober 26, 2007 E. Davis Coots Coots Henke Wheeler 255 E. Carmel Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Re: L ubavitch of Indiana 07070012 SU Dear Mr. Coots: Sincerely, Christine Barton Holmes Planning Zoning Administrator Department of Community Services cc: Jim Blanchard, Building Commissioner Sarah Lillard, Building Code CITY CAR EL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Division of Planning Zoning LETTER, of GRANT If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 317/571-2417. At the meeting held Monday, October 22, 2007, the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action regarding the Special Use (SU) filed by you for the property located at 2640 West 96 Street. APPROVED: Docket No. 07070012 SU Special Use application for religious uses in a residential district with the Commitments to continue working with the Department of Community Services on screening, especially the parking lot screening, the knee wall along the parking lot and evergreens to block the parking lot illumination. Please be advised that per Section 21.02.07: Time Limit of the Zoning Ordinance, any person to whom a Special Use is granted by the Board, under the procedures set forth in this chapter, shall have conunenced continuous construction of said Special Use or implemented said Special Use within one year of the date of the granting of the approval or said approval shall become null and void. When applying for any applications for permits regarding the improvements contained within this approval, pleae include a copy of this letter with your application materials in order to assist the Department's review ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417 Citv of Carmel 27- 07Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, October 22, 2007 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, October 22, 2007, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members in attendance were Kent Broach, James Hawkins and Madeleine Torres, thereby establishing a quorum. Earlene Plavchak was still presiding at the 5:15 PM BZA Hearing Office meeting in the Caucus Rooms. Christine Barton Holmes, Rachel Boone, and Mike Hollibaugh represented the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mrs. Torres moved to approve the minutes of the September 24, 2007 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 3 -0. Mrs. Barton Holmes gave the Department Report. She stated Item 2I Westwood Estates and Items 3 -41 North Meridian Medical Pavilion were tabled to the November 26, 2007 meeting. Mr. Molitor asked to delay the Legal Report until the end of the meeting when Mrs. Plavchak would be in attendance. H. Public Hearing: lh. Drics Pool Remodel Regent's Circle The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07090003 V Section 25.01.B.3.b.i.b Pool and deck encroaching less than 3' into easement The site is located at 12954 Regent Circle and is zoned Sl /Residential. Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates for John Drics, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Lowell Rolsky, Pro Care Horticultural Services, representing Adam DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates who was unable to attend. They would be encroaching more than 3 feet into the easement, but less than 30 feet. An aerial view of the property was shown with the current pool. They will remove this pool and replace it with a new pool that better meets the safety and aesthetics requirements of the new homeowner. A site plan was shown. The new pool would be perpendicular with the house, extending approximately 30 feet into the existing,floodplain, variable drainage easement line. The actual flood fringe was indicated. The existing variable easement line is larger than the hundred -year flood fringe line. The new pool will not negatively impact surrounding neighborhood uses and will not adversely affect the drainage from the Stultz Almond drain. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. Mrs. Barton- Holmes gave the Department Report. The Ordinance does require all accessory structures, including pools and pool houses to be located at least three feet outside of any easement. The rear yard Page 1 of 12 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 of this site is primarily easement due to the Stultz Almond ditch and the 100 -year floodplain. The Department has been working extensively with the County Surveyors office which regulates this floodplain. From a meeting earlier this day with the County Drainage Board, they faxed an approved Non Enforcement Perrnit. That would permit this construction and absolve the County of responsibility to allow the construction of the pool house, pool and pool deck within the drainage easement. There are some similar constructions and accessory structures in this area. This would not be out of character with the surrounding subdivision. Because the County feels there would be no negative impact on drainage to this site or surrounding sites, the Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Hawkins asked Mr. Molitor if the Petitioner would need to do anything with the Department of Natural Resources with the 100 -year flood zone. Mr. Molitor stated there was not. Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 07090003 V, Dries Pool Remodel. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 3 -0. A five minute recess was taken. Mrs. Plavchak joined the Board from the earlier Hearing Officer meeting. I. Old Business Lubavitch of Indiana The applicant seeks the following special use approval: Docket No. 07070012 SU Appendix A: Use Table Religious Uses in a Residential District The site is located at 2640 West 96` Street and is zoned S1/Residential. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler, PC for Lubavitch of Indiana. Present for the Petitioner: Dave Coots, 255 E. Carmel Drive. Also present were Rabbi Grossbaum and Dennis Lockwood the project architect. This is a revision of the Special Use application submitted approximately one year ago. At that time they received a 2 -2 vote. They had also submitted a Development Standards Variance at that time, seeking to narrow the width of the lot upon which they sought to build the structure that was proposed at that time. An aerial photograph of the area was shown. The property is an approximate four -acre site on 96 Street, west of Towne Road and adjacent to real estate that is owned and occupied by the College Park Baptist Church. A site plan of the approved additions to the College Park Church, as well as the expanded parking and a proposed future accessory building were shown. On the same site plan was shown the proposed Lubavitch building and parking area. The Lubavitch four -acre site has been divided into two pieces. The proposed structure would be 12,000 square feet versus the original 16,000 square feet. The parking area would be to the north/rear of the building. Another graphic was shown highlighting the large amount of asphalt that has been approved for the College Park Baptist Church, compared to the Lubavitch parking and building coverage which meet the thirty -five percent stated in the Ordinance. They have eliminated the need for the variance application by bisecting the lot into two pieces. They propose to construct a cul -de -sac that would access and service the piece they seek to build upon. The remaining approximate one and a half acre will remain S -1 residential. Before anything other than single family residential could occur on that portion, they would need to come back to the BZA for any approvals. On the site plan, the property to the west is the Shelborne Greene Subdivision with approximately 13 single family Page 2 of 12 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 L residences that abut the Lubavitch tract. To the north is S -1 residential and to the east is S -1 residential. To the south in Marion County are higher density single family residential condominiums. The proposed site is smaller than the original proposal which had received objections from the Board. Part of the objection had been the relationship of the proposed building to the houses to the west. Mr. Lockwood had prepared a schematic showing the separation from the residential houses to the proposed structure. There is a twenty -foot common area that is owned by the Shelborne Greene Homeowners Association, a required setback on the Lubavitch parcel and a drainage utility easement in the backyards of the Shelborne Greene homes along with their rear yard setback. In total there is approximately eighty feet from any structure to the proposed building. The proposed plan was shown. They had reduced the previously proposed building from a two -story structure to a one -story structure. They have supplanted the previous second story space into a basement in the new proposal. The multi- purpose room is the tallest portion of the structure and it is thirty feet. The two -story homes to the west have a thirty -five foot gable. The rest of the proposed building is 20 feet at its highest elevations. The proposed building materials are EFIS. He shared pictures of other buildings in the community that are primarily of EFIS construction. However, they are mindful of the concerns of the adjacent property owners about what they perceive to be the appearance of the building. Thus they have attempted to lower the elevation and the profile of the building as well as incorporated a fairly extensive landscape buffer on the east and west sides of the parcel. The information in the packet indicates the existing as well as the proposed plantings for the buffer. The plantings around the building are designed to make a solid visual buffer, especially for the properties to the west. As the Board is aware, there is a slight difference between a variance application and a special use application. A special exception is a use that is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance upon a showing of certain statutory criteria. Whereas a variance is a deviation from the underlying zoning criteria. He went through the zoning criteria in Section 21.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. There are twenty -five elements that the Board considers in determining if they have proved the entitlement to a special use. The first one is the topography of the site. The topography of this site is not encumbered by flood issues, easement issues and things of that nature. The zoning is S -1 and they are a. special use within that zone classification. The surrounding zoning and land uses, as he indicated earlier, are residential and the neighboring church to the east. The streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be provided by them. The cul -de -sac will be constructed by Lubavitch as well as the multi purpose path along 96 Street that connects with the Baptist Church's multi- purpose path. The continuation path to the west is within the Carmel Thoroughfare Plan. For access to public streets, 96 Street is a targeted thoroughfare as pointed out in the Department Report. The driveway and curb -cut location for this site was moved to the eastern boundary in order not to negatively impact the properties to the west. The general vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been a•cresse e par ng ocation and arrangement is to the far north of the property. Further on to the north is reserved area in the event they need to expand parking. They have calculated the parking on the basis of the Ordinance and the size of the meeting room. The Ordinance requires one parking space per four seats within the multi purpose room. Its dimensions total 1375 square feet and they are required to have twenty -three parking spaces. They will have thirty -five spaces. He had already addressed the building height and elevations. The front, side and rear yards meet the requirements of the S -1 Ordinance. The site coverage, as indicated, is thirty -five percent. The trash and material storage for the site is located at the north end of the parking lot. Within the packet materials submitted to the Board was a schematic of the proposed brick enclosed trash dumpster. Alleys and service areas do not apply to this parcel. Along the cul -de -sac to be constructed, there are the required easements for utility purposes to service the whole parcel. He had already addressed the landscaping and tree masses and the screening and buffering to the west. Per the Ordinance, the lighting coverage, as shown in the packet, is less than a tenth of a foot candle at any perimeter point. There are a variety of lighting fixtures to be used, including mushroom lights along walkways and sconces along the exterior of the Page 3 of 12 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 building. There are only two pole lights in the parking lot area. The balance of the lights along the front, the rear and the sidewalk area are the mushroom style lighting or wall sconce lighting. There is no fencing in this project. There is the on -sight and off -sight surface and subsurface storm system. Even though there are drainage easements between various properties to the west, the drainage for this sight will go out to 96 Street where there is an intake along the 96 Street right -of -way. Therefore, they will not be using the existing drainage easement in the Shelborne Greene Subdivision. The public utilities are all available. The right -of -way for the cul -de -sac will be dedicated to the City of Carmel. The signage as shown meets the Ordinance. It is a brick structure with the identification of Lubavitch of Indiana on the sign. There are no other restrictions or covenants that are a part of the application. He had gone over the Findings of Fact with the Department. He felt he had addressed. the comments that were contained in the general information and analysis by the Department who recommended a positive consideration of the application. Favorable: Parisa Keisari, 11645 Victoria Court, Carmel. She has lived in the community for almost twenty years. During that time she has had to travel outside her community for her religious needs. She has been involved with the Lubavitch community all those years. They are a values based group that supports family values. Any time she has had family issues, she has gone to them for counseling. Before her marriage, they counseled her and her husband on family ways. She would love to have them as a neighbor in the community and felt they would be a great influence. Ben Strout, 11576 Senie Lane, Carmel. He met Rabbi Grossbaum about twenty -five years ago when he moved to Indianapolis. In that time he has been impressed with the Rabbi's spirituality and his dedication to the community. He has lived in Carmel five years and would love to welcome the Rabbi and Lubavitch of Indiana to Carmel as neighbors. He felt they could only grow in diversity and level of spirituality. Fern Merkin, 1059 Timber Creek Drive, Carmel. She had moved to Carmel last year partly because the Jewish community has been moving north and she wanted to live where there was a functioning Jewish community. She felt the area was very underserved. There was currently only one conservative Suhl being built. She felt every Jewish practice should be represented with a Suhl. Because they are Orthodox, they will not be driving on their. Sabbath. They will be walking to the Suhl (synagogue). From talking with the Planners, she understood that a walking path would be going in within the next three years. Speaking with friends who are members at College Park Baptist Church, they felt this would be an ideal neighbor. Lubavitch is a very warm, welcoming, joyous community with all Jews being welcomed. Jay Walerstein, 10124 Summerlakes Drive. He has been involved with Lubavitch about 15 of the 19 years he has lived in Carmel. He looked forward to Lubavitch moving into the neighborhood. He is within walking distance of the facility. His family, including two teenage sons and a 10 year old, has enjoyed Lubavitch and its community functions. Solomon Berman, 1379 Newcastle Drive. They have lived here eight years. Their son went to Bar Mitzvah which is very important. Lubavitch has been very helpful in their every day Jewish life in Indiana. Nathan Breall, 1826 Summerlakes Court (youth). He has lived here about eight years. There have been all types of synagogues, but there are not a lot of Orthodox temples like this one. He felt this could Page 4 of 12 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 help the diversity in Carmel, as well as the population. There could not be anything bad, it would only help. Dr. Steinman, 3925 Kitty Hawk Court, a neurosurgeon in Carmel for almost twenty -five years. When he moved into Carmel, he was a rarity. There were not many Jews here and there were no synagogues. He does not attend Rabbi Grossbaum's synagogue. A huge Catholic church has been built in his neighborhood. The church is a good neighbor and no one in his neighborhood has problems backing up to a church parking lot. He does not know this neighborhood, but they are probably nice and they probably feel strongly about this project. But this is a very small church and he felt it would be good for Carmel. When he moved here Carmel had a certain reputation and he felt it was the best place in Indiana. Carmel needs to accommodate this type of need for its constituents. It would be the same thing if a Catholic had to go ten to fifteen miles away. He is a member of the synagogue being built in west Carmel. He made the choice to drive to it over the years. Carmel can't be a world -class city and then tell people to go to Indianapolis for their religious needs. He will probably not attend Lubavitch, but he supports it. Jeffrey Breall, 1826 Summerlakes Court. He too thought it was important to say that the Grossbaum's are some of the finest people he has met since he has lived in Carmel for over seven years. This gives Carmel and Indiana another opportunity to become world class. Rabbi Grossbaum has done many, many things not only for Carmel, but for the entire area. It would a travesty if we were not able to have this type of opportunity in Carmel. Opposition: Organized Remonstrance Steve Noone, 9653 Cypress Way in Shelborne Greene. Their property abuts this new facility. They have no objection whatsoever to Rabbi Grossbaum and Lubavitch of Indiana building a facility in Carmel. Their objection solely has to do with the fact that it is this property and granting a special use variance. He had submitted a set of signed petitions from 24 of the 32 residents of the properties that would be exposed to the new facility and the parking lot. A site rendering was shown. Two that did not sign are Shelborne Green Association board members. Three homeowners are religious. They did not approach them since they deferred from signing the last time. There is one unoccupied home that is for sale. One homeowner was not home during the attempts to pole the neighbors and one was undecided. He also understood there was someone who had signed a petition with objections from across 96 Street in North Point Bay. Much of their concern is that a facility is trying to force onto a property that is zoned S -1 residential. Their understanding is that the property needs to be at least 120 feet for residential use and 200 feet for special use. The property is only 136 feet wide. It is their understanding the regulations would not accommodate that. They did not understand why there was not a lot -width variance filed at this time. Mr. Coots stated they had cut the parcel in half and that eliminated the need for the minimum 200 feet width. Their primary concerns were security and the loss of the buffer between their properties and the College Park Baptist Church. They do not object to College Park Baptist Church because it was there when their subdivision was planned and the houses were built. Also the College Park Baptist Church building does not sit eighty feet from their homes, which as Mr. Coots explained this new facility will be eighty feet from their house. The objections are security and the loss of buffer. The neighbors are united in opposition to granting this special use variance. Opposition: General Public Andrew Osterholzer, 9643 Cypress Way in Shelborne Greene. He too appreciates the diversity of religious associations in Carmel as it adds tangible value to the community. Unfortunately the presence of any non residential building on this site would harm the residents of Shelborne Greene. The loss of Page 5 of 12 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 greenspace, the presence of a large building in close proximity to existing homes, the presence of parking lot lights, as well as building security lights, would significantly devalue the properties in the area. It appears that the average sale price is already declining in this portion of Shelborne Greene. He felt this was due to the presence of several foreclosures as well as several sellers going through corporate relocation which made it feasible for them to be very generous in their sales price. He felt the last thing this neighborhood needed was any other reason for property values to decline. When he purchased his home approximately two years ago, he called the Board ahead of time asking what could possibly be built here. They assured him, because of the lot and the zoning, it would be nothing but a residential home. Therefore, he felt comfortable knowing the buffer would always remain in place. He welcomed Lubavitch to the community and felt it would be a great value. He just felt this site was not conducive to this use. Jason Ehret, 3487 Inverness Blvd, Shelborne Greene. They moved in about three or four weeks ago with their five -month old son for the purpose of raising their baby in a nice friendly neighborhood. They had moved from Marion County after searching two or three years for a nice house in their price range that backed up to a nice wooded area so that they could raise their son in privacy. They were also told that the lot in question was supposed to only be used for residential use and no other structure could be built on this land. Another aspect that scared him about the project was he is a police officer in the City of hndianapolis. He knows what goes on in empty parking lots that are off the beaten path which is what this parking lot would be. There will be increased littering and trash that will blow into their back yards and increased break -ins which would not be good for the area that backs up to this lot. Maureen Johnson, 2570 Chaseway Court, Indianapolis. She would be leery about walking to the church along 96 Street because there are no sidewalks. The sidewalks at the Baptist Church are set back. They are not really sidewalks; they are for the Baptist Church. Her front windows face 96 Street. She knows there are problems for bicycles on 96 Street. It was stated the people at College Park Baptist Church were really nice. Several months ago someone in the upper echelon of that church had been accused of molesting a three -year old child. She wouldn't want those people for her neighbors. Also she saw the plans last year. It looked like the church was just getting longer rather than taller. How have the trees changed from last year? Last year it was mentioned that they have several overnight meetings and kitchens. She does not want strangers in her neighborhood at night. Steve Hantz, 9605 Cypress Way_in Shelborne Greene. Their property is immediately adjacent to the Lubavitch property. As was the case when the proposal was first rejected in 2006, his main arguments in opposition to the special use variance still remain with the Findings of Fact and the application for special use approval request that the BZA requires from Lubavitch. At that time he had mentioned that none of the requirements had been met by Lubavitch and he believed that was still the case. He also wanted to add to the list the drainage facility having over 21,000 square feet of paving area will cause additional problems in their subdivision. Right now the drainage situation is pretty poor. Their basement has flooded several times. A temporary stream forms along the eastern edge of Shelborne Greene which included his backyard. He imagined it was there now if anyone wanted to take a look. Without some additional drainage system or retention pond on the Lubavitch property, the flooding in that area would increase to an unacceptable level. He wanted to reiterate that their neighborhood had never rejected or been against Lubavitch joining the Carmel community. It is just a fact of a building being too big on too small a lot that is zoned residential. His hope was that the land would be used as intended by the original zoning and by the requirements of the Board. Page 6 of 12 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 Alisha Ehret, 3487 Inverness Blvd. Like her husband said, they had searched for a home and moved to Carmel from Marion County. He gave up his take -home police car to move to this house on this particular lot. They bought this house particularly for this lot. They had just moved in and found out two days ago that they could potentially loose the tree line that they had purchased the home for. With that gone, she did not want to live there any more. That is the beauty of the neighborhood. It has nothing to do with the religious organization; they simply do not want a parking lot behind their house to look at. Rebuttal: Mr. Coots pointed out from the prior hearing, Police Chief Fogarty gave his opinion that having a developed piece of property with lighting was a more secure circumstance than exists now or fencing off the drive way because the police vehicles need the ability to get to the parking area. He did not feel they were creating an attractive area for vagrants or people looking for inappropriate use of the parking lot. The building will be occupied and there will be meetings there from time to time. It will be no different than a residential use. This is zoned S -1 property and a special use is a contemplated use. A church or religious life center is a contemplated use under the Ordinance in an S -1 classification. As he had indicated earlier, the distinction between that and a variance application that they sought earlier is that the Board, upon a showing of meeting statutory criteria, is obligated to grant the special use. The variance is something that is purely discretionary because it is a request that the zoning classification be changed. But the special use application does not do that. There is no evidence from which the Board could conclude that they have not met the special use criteria that is considered in making the review. They have made the commitment in their plans that the tree 'Buffer along the west property boundary remains and will be augmented. It is in compliance with the landscape ordinance imposed by the City of Carmel. If it were developed residentially, there is no requirement that the tree line remain or any landscaping other than what is typically installed in a residential subdivision. For the drainage issue, as the Board knows, they cannot discharge water at a rate greater than exists in its undeveloped state. The retention on sight and the discharge to a positive drain on 96 Street will have no impact on the adjacent properties to the west. If there is a drainage problem now, they do not do anything to address that. It is not something they will be utilizing. They will have to retain on site any water so that the rate of flow exiting the property is identical to what it is in its undeveloped state. Finally, for the width of the lot issue, they meet the Ordinance requirement by reason of the cul -de -sac that they construct. They have the lot width required on a public thoroughfare to meet the Ordinance. It is not measured off 96 Street. It is measured off the cul -de -sac that they have proposed to construct. It is not an issue of this no longer being a 200 -foot wide piece of property. The property remains its 135 -foot width, but the frontage on the cul -de -sac complies with the Ordinance. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton- Holmes gave the Department Report. The Department does generally recognize religious uses as being compatible with residential uses. They typically do not generate as much traffic as retail use or even an office use. They can provide a good buffer between a more intensive use and the less intensive residential use. With regards to a couple of the continents made at this meeting, the parking lot lights are required to be 90 percent downcast so that all the light would be contained within the lot. The diagram submitted with the Petitioner's report does indicate that the lights would be contained within the lot. The Department made a further suggestion, with regard to the parking lot area, to work with Scott Brewer to possibly install a kneewall or something similar that would also serve to block headlights. It wouldn't necessarily have an affect on security one way or the other, but it would also help contain the site somewhat. It is planned for 96 Street to have a ten -foot multi -use separated path Page 7 of 12, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 on the Alternative Transportation Thoroughfare Plan. There is not a timeline for the installation. The City is working to get the paths installed as quickly as possible. There is a sidewalk already existing and the construction of the path would be required along the frontage of this site. It will be a step in the direction of providing the necessary infrastructure for people walking to the facility. The Department recommended positive consideration and felt religious_uses _are appropriate next to residential uses. Mr. Broach was interested in the landscape buffer. In terms of what exists, will that be undisturbed? Dennis Lockwood, Lockwood Design Associates, 10610 N. Park Avenue, Indianapolis. With regard to the buffer along the west side of the property, during normal development and construction there will be some loss of trees on the property to be able to put the parking lot and building in place. However, the intent is to maintain as much of the undergrowth and trees along that property line as possible. Last year prior to corning before this Board, they did a survey of the trees along that property line. The majority of the undergrowth and the trees really are on the common area lot that is not on this parcel, but to the west. A majority of that material will not be touched because it is not on this parcel. As far as the new plantings for the buffer along the west side of the property that is going to buffer this parcel to the residences along the west side, the Ordinance calls for a more dense planting of trees and shrubs, a combination of ornamental and shade trees. They are putting in five shade trees, five ornamental trees and twenty -seven shrubs every one hundred feet along that property line. That will be very dense concentration of materials in addition to the existing material they will save and the material that is in the common area to the west. Mr. Broach asked if they considered any evergreens or will it be mostly deciduous. He thought the last time this came before the Board, the Staff had recommended evergreens. He did not know if the Urban Forester had reviewed and approved this plan. Mrs. Barton Holmes indicated the Urban Forester had approved this plan. Mr. Lockwood stated the tree material, both ornamental and shade trees, will be deciduous varieties. Several of the shrubs selected could be classified as in the evergreen family. He believed the Ordinance made an allowance to address the amount of shrubs by putting in evergreens. They could certainly look at replacing some of the shrubs with evergreens if that is desirable. Mr. Broach had reviewed the minutes from the last time they discussed this matter and he thought there was a sense that some evergreens might be useful to create a better visual buffer. Mrs. Barton Holmes stated the Urban Forester had reviewed and approved this plan, but he is always open to continuing to work with the Petitioner on any necessary modifications. Mr. Coots stated that blending evergreens with what they had proposed would not be a problem. There is only so much room. If an evergreen is requested, that gives year -round color as opposed to deciduous trees; they would have no objection to working with the Urban Forester in an effort to accomplish that, especially along the parking area. Mr. Broach thought it seemed like the foot print had been reduced significantly by 4000 square feet. Generally you may have alluded to this, but where did that come from? What was reduced? Did it come out of the multi -use room? Page 8 of 12 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 Mr. Lockwood stated they basically reduced portions of the building, like putting it on a copy machine. Part of the multi -use room was reduced, some of the classroom areas, and they had tried to make a more compact design. Mrs. Torres .wanted to clarify _when_a. special use. is_permitted. The one gentleman was talking about the required lot width being 200 feet for the special use. Mrs. Barton Holmes stated the way the site had been redesigned; they have a cul -de -sac which meets the required limits. The radius of the cul -de -sac where the property frontage wraps around the bulb of that cul -de -sac actually attains the necessary 200 -foot frontage. The overall width of the site has not changed, but because they are using the cul -de -sac which is going to be dedicated right -of -way, that's how they obtained the 200 feet. Mrs. Torres asked if the last time the variance was for lot width. Mr. Coots confirmed that and that it had been defeated. The special use was a no vote at 2 -2. Mrs. Torres asked if they would be open to the kneewall idea along the parking lot to provide more buffering for the lights on the cars in the back parking ot. le did not know the height, but maybe they could come to terms with the Department on the height to provide more buffering for the neighbors. Mr. Lockwood stated they would be very willing to work with the Department on the buffering. Mrs. Torres asked the height of the two light poles in the parking lot. Mr. Lockwood stated they were twenty -foot poles including the base. Mr. Hawkins wanted to verify there was no daycare or weekday school at this facility that could become a traffic issue. Rabbi Grossbaum, 1037 Golf Lane, Indianapolis. He wanted to thank everyone who spoke in support of the project. For those who spoke against the project, he respected their opinions. At this time they do not have a daycare and have no plans for a daycare. One of the gentlemen stated that he had spoken with the City be ore pure asmg is tome and was o the area was residential. In the same way, they had spoken with the City a few years ago before purchasing the property and were assured there was not a problem. Mr. Hawkins asked about the cul -de -sac. Was the City going to take it? Would it be a right -of -way or would it be a dedicated road that the City would have the responsibility? Mrs. Barton Holmes stated it would become a dedicated right -of -way, so it would become part of the City's inventory of .streets. Mr. Broach asked if procedurally they had gone through TAC again this year and was drainage discussed? Mr. Lockwood believed they were at the August TAC meeting. They will follow the drainage requirements. Page 9 of 12 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting October 22, 2007 0 +e__, r. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 07070012 SU, Lubavitch of Indiana with the Commitments to continue working with the Department of Community Services on screening, especially the parking lot screening, the knee wall along the parking lot and evergreens to block the paw rking lot illumination. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4 -0. 2I. Westwood Estates Buffer Yard The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07080010 V Section 26.04.04 Buffer yard in regulated drain easement The sites are located at 2165 Renegade Court -2095 Renegade Court and are zoned S1. /Single- family residential Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney Evans, LLP for Justus Home Builders, Inc. Tabled to the November 26, 2007 meeting. 3 -4I. North Meridian Medical Pavilion Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07080011 V Section 25.07.02 -10 Number of signs facing ROW Bldg. A. Docket No. 07080012 V Section 25.07.02 -10 Number of signs facing ROW Bldg. B. The site is located at 12188 N. Meridian St., and is zoned B -6. Filed by Doug Staley, Jr. of Staley Signs. Tabled to the November 26, 2007 meeting. J. New Business Legal Report: Mr. Molitor reported he had received word that the Court had rescheduled the trial for Martin Marietta from May 2008 to October 20, 2008. He asked the Board members to please keep that week clear on their calendars. Department Report: Rachel Boone reminded the Board about the Hamilton Beverage signage variance. They had requested signage larger than what was permitted for their site. They were doing a complete remodel, moving the entrance to the store and cleaning up the property. They were permitted by variance 75 square feet to face 116 Street and 50 square feet to face the interior parking area. The two existing signs were cabinet signs and were both 50 square feet. That's why the one on the interior was allowed to continue at 50 square feet. The concern of the Department is that through the Special Studies Committee they had been asked to consider doing the day /night plexiglas with the sign in color during the day and illuminated white at night. The ADLS Amendment application was approved providing they could prove the cost was not excessive for the day /night plex versus color during the day and night. When they applied for their sign permit applications, she did not get a cost estimate for day /night plex. So she has not approved the signs that are already installed. They have not provided the cost analysis proving the installed signs should be allowed with color during the day and night. She has asked for the cost analysis so that she could issue the permits. Hamilton Beverage legal counsel has advised them against providing the analysis. She had given the Board cost analysis from a different sign company indicating their cost to create both types of signs. To her, the cost was not that excessive at about $1,000 difference. The original proposal is somewhat higher from the sign company that made the erected signs. That company did not provide a cost for the day /night plex. How should the Department proceed? The signs are up illegally. Page 10 of 12 October 26, 2007 E. Davis Coots Coots Henke Wheeler 255 E. Carmel Drive Carmel, UN 46032 Re: Lubavitch of Indiana 07070012 SU Dear Mr. Coots: At the meeting held Monday, October 22, 2007, the Carmel Board of Toning Appeals took the following action regarding the Special Use (SIT) filed by you for the property located at 2640 West 46 11 Street. APPROVED: Docket No. 070711U12 SU Special Use application for religious uses in a residential district with the Commitments to continue working with the Department of Community Services on screening, especially the parking lot screening, the knee wall along the parking lot and evergreens to block the parking lot illumination_ Please be advised that per Section 21.02.07: Time Limit of the Zoning Ordinance, any person to whom a Special I ise is granted by the Board, under the procedures set forth in this chapter, shall have commenced continuous construction of said Special. Use or implemented said Special Use within one year of the date of the granting of the approval or said approval shall become null and void. When applying for any applications for permits regarding the improvements contained within this approval, please include a copy of this letter with your application materials in order to assist the Department's review. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 317/571-2417. Sincerely, Christine Barton- Holmes Planning Zoning Administrator Department of Conununity Services cc: Jim Blanchard, Building Cotuuvssioner Sarah Lillard, Building Code CITE' OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Division of Planning Zoning LETTER of GRANT ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317-571-2417 June 18, 2010 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Re: Memo dated June 14, 2010 from Rabbi Avi Grossbaum, Lubavitch of Indiana Found in newspaper slot below our mailbox KATHLEEN AND STEPHEN NOONE 9653 CYPRESS WAY CARMEL, IN 46032 (317) 870 -7513 Clearing of property began June 18, 2010 Paragraph #2: "Since we shared our previous development plans, we have initiated a new site design effort." For which set of plans? Those of October 9, 2007 or those of May 8, 2009? Paragraph #3: "We have met with planning and forestry staff to update them on current development plans." For which set of plans? Those of October 9, 2007 or those of May 8, 2009? Did the planning and forestry staff know the second set of plans had not been approved by the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, if that is what was presented to them? We would appreciate a written response to this communication. Respectfully, 0--CYLZ2-ran L- Kathleen A. Noone Stephen J. Noone June 18, 2010 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals KATHLEEN AND STEPHEN NOONE 9653 CYPRESS WAY CARMEL, IN 46032 (317) 870 -7513 4 RECEIVED 1 82010 DOGS Re: Letter dated May 8, 2009 from COOTS HENKE WHEELER, P.C. Paragraph #2: "Since that approval, Lubavitch of Indiana has met with adjacent property owners, who requested that the driving lane be placed on the west side of the building..." As one of the adjacent property owners, we were not contacted, nor was anyone whom we know contacted. None of those who are directly adjacent to the building were contacted. No one who spoke at the October 9, 2009 zoning board meeting was contacted. Also, having a driving lane immediately behind 12.5 lots or 13 homes does not seem like an improvement in regards to safety of children or the ability of strangers, not connected to the faith center, having immediate access to the back of so many residences. This appeared as a major concern for home owners, bringing people so far back off 96th Street deep into the property even with the driveway on the other side of the building farther from the property lines. We were asked to sign a consent form to the modifications so they could get approval from the zoning board. This was supposedly for those directly adjacent to the building and parking lot We did not sign it We are unaware that anyone did. How many signed their approval? Would this approval have made it legal without another zoning board hearing? Is the driveway still "donated" to the City of Carmel as a road? The site plan was approved based on measuring "around" a circular drop -off section of the driveway thus a loop -hole in the linear measurement of frontage feet at 96th Street, which was too few feet to qualify according to zoning regulations. There is no circular drop -off in the revised site plan accompanying the May 8 letter. Does the "loop- hole" now disappear, making the lot "again" too narrow to qualify for approval by the zoning board, which was their opinion in 2006? It is now 136 feet wide again, not the required 200 feet at the street It appears to us that the revised site plan is more than 10% change over the approved plan. We would appreciate a written response to this communication. Respectfully, a Kathleen A. Noone Stephen J. Noone Memo From: Rabbi Avi Grossbaum, Lubavitch of Indiana Memo To: Our Neighbors in Shelborne Green June 14, 2010 As you are aware, Lubavitch of Indiana is planning to construct a building on our property located adjacent to your neighborhood. This notice is an update for our neighbors regarding our current status and progress. In the intervening time since we shared our previous development plans, we have initiated a new site design effort that includes sustainable sites design practices. This low impact development approach will promote tree preservation, improve storm water quality and reduce storm water runoff through the use of indigenous landscape plants. It will be as environmentally sensitive as practically possible. We have engaged the services of a well respected and capable site engineering firm specializing in sustainable development. Our property boasts a number of significant trees, a fair amount of smaller trees, as well as other vegetation including underbrush, briars and other dense and thorny brush. In order to gain access to assess existing tree stock and then prepare a tree preservation plan for submittal to local authorities, we are planning to remove the underbrush, briars and a number of dead and dying shade trees. The bulk of the removal activities will be focused on the removal of exotic and invasive non native species that tend to colonize untended landscapes. This will allow our consultants the necessary access to assess tree stock and tree health including issues such as emerald ash borer infestation, root rot, anthracnose, etc. We have met with planning and forestry staff to update them on our current development plans, and inform them of our phase one clearing activities. The ultimate goal of our sustainable sites development plan is to preserve more of the existing, valuable and indigenous tree stock than our previous development plan would have allowed, while still meeting our development program needs. We look forward to developing this project, while being good neighbors and good stewards of the land. Should you see anything which you think needs our attention, or should you wish to comment on any part of the project, you could reach me at (cell) 698 -6724 or rabbi @lubavitchindiana.com tom j rt 51 47" rictk i Coots -ke heeler E. DAVIS CO(SI:S JAMES K. WHEELER JAY CURTS JAMES D. CRUM JEFFREY S. ZIPES ELIZABETH I. VAN' PASSEL MATTHEW L. HINKLE DANIEL E. COOTS BRANDI A. GIBSON JILLIAN C. KEATING BLAKE N. SHELBY CERTIFIED MEDIATOR OF COUNSEL: STEVEN H. HENKE 255 East Carmel Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 -2689 317 844 -4693 FAX: 317- 573 -5385 www.chwlaw.com Stephen J. and Kathleen A. Noone 9653 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Property Located at 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46268 Our Client. Lubavitch of Indiana Our File No. 16759 Dear Stephen and Kathleen: May 8, 2009 On October 9, 2007, Lubavitch of Indiana obtained approval from the Carmel Board ofZoning Appeals to construct a 12,238 square foot worship center on a five acre parcel east of and adjacent to your rear property line (the original approval depicted on Sheet No. 2). Since that approval, Lubavitch of Indiana has met with adjacent property owners, who requested that the driving lane be placed on the west side of the building to enable the building to be moved east and further away from their homes. Lubavitch of Indiana reconfigured its plans to meet this request, allowing the building to be shifted east, further from the property owners on the west. Also, Lubavitch of Indiana evaluated alternatives that modify the original approval by "flip- flopping" the building orientation, moving the structure 48 feet east of the west property boundary, versus the original 20 feet in the approved plan; reducing the building size by approximately 1,000 square feet; reorienting the parking lot from west to east, closer to the Baptist Church parking lot; and reversing the "front elevation" of the building from the east to the west. The commitment to construct a solid masonry wall with landscaping along the west boundary of the parking area remains. The commercial appearance of the entry road will be changed to a residential- appearing driveway and the previously approved lighting and landscaping remains unchanged, except the lighting would be moved further to the east in the parking area. These changes are shown on Sheet No. 1 attached to this letter. To make these changes. we are asking that the ownership of properties adjacent to the building and parking area consent to the modifications so that Lubavitch of Indiana can obtain approval from the Carmel Department of Community Services. To accomplish that, I would ask that you review the tendered plans, call me at (317) 844 4693 or Rabbi Avi Grossbaum at (317) 698 -6724 with any questions, and then execute the enclosed Consent Form and return it to me in the enclosed addressed, stamped envelope. Thank you for your consideration. EDC /jc Enclosures Very truly yours, COB HENKE WHEELER, P.C. E. Davis Coots CONSENT FORM The undersigned, being the owners of property located at 9653 Cypress Way, Carmel, IN 46032, consent to the proposed changes outlined in the letter submitted to us dated May 8, 2009, and request the Carmel Department of Community Services to approve the requested changes. Stephen J. Noone Kathleen A. Noone s oots Henke eeler E: DUN Cram* JA \IHS K. \k'HI.:LER JY Grim JA\II s I). (:RUM JEFFREY S. ZIPEs° EUZAIIFIY 1 1. VAN TASSEL MATTHEW L. HINKI E DANIEL E. COOTS BRANDI A. GraSON JILLIAN C. KEA'I'LNG BLAKE N. SIIELBY `CERTIFIED NE111A'IYIR OF COUNSEL: STEVEN H. HENKE 255 East Carmel Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 -2689 317. 844 -4693 FAX: 317- 573 -5385 www.chwlaw.com Stephen J. and Kathleen A. Noone 9653 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Stephen and Kathleen: EDC /jc Enclosures May 8, 2009 Very truly yours, E. Davis Coots RE: Property Located at 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46268 Our Client: Lubavitch of Indiana Our File No. 16759 On October 9, 2007, Lubavitch of Indiana obtained approval from the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals to construct a 12,238 square foot worship center on a five acre parcel east of and adjacent to your rear property line (the original approval depicted on Sheet No. 2). Since that approval, Lubavitch of Indiana has met with adjacent property owners, who requested that the driving lane be placed on the west side of the building to enable the building to be moved east and further away from their homes. Lubavitch of Indiana reconfigured its plans to meet this request, allowing the building to be shifted east, further from the property owners on the west. Also, Lubavitch of Indiana evaluated alternatives that modify the original approval by "flip flopping" the building orientation, moving the structure 48 feet east ofthe west property boundary, versus the original 20 feet in the approved plan; reducing the building size by approximately 1,000 square feet; reorienting the parking lot from west to east, closer to the Baptist Church parking lot; and reversing the "front elevation" of the building from the east to the west. The commitment to construct a solid masonry wall with landscaping along the west boundary of the parking area remains. The commercial appearance of the entry road will be changed to a residential- appearing driveway and the previously approved lighting and landscaping remains unchanged, except the lighting would be moved further to the east in the parking area. These changes are shown on Sheet No. I attached to this letter. To make these changes, we are asking that the ownership of properties adjacent to the building and parking area consent to the modifications so that Lubavitch of Indiana can obtain approval from the Carmel Department of Community Services. To accomplish that, I would ask that you review the tendered plans, call me at (317) 844- 4693 or Rabbi Avi Grossbaum at (317) 698 -6724 with any questions, and then execute the enclosed Consent Form and return it to me in the enclosed addressed, stamped envelope. Thank you for your consideration.• COBS HENKE WHEELER, P.C. Memo From: Rabbi Avi Grossbaum, Lubavitch of Indiana Memo To: Our Neighbors in Shelborne Green June 14, 2010 As you are aware, Lubavitch of Indiana is planning to construct a building on our property located adjacent to your neighborhood. This notice is an update for our neighbors regarding our current status and progress. In the intervening time since we shared our previous development plans, we have initiated a new site design effort that includes sustainable sites design practices. This low impact development approach will promote tree preservation, improve storm water quality and reduce storm water runoff through the use of indigenous landscape plants. It will be as environmentally sensitive as practically possible. We have engaged the services of a well respected and capable site engineering firm specializing in sustainable development. Our property boasts a number of significant trees, a fair amount of smaller trees, as well as other vegetation including underbrush, briars and other dense and thorny brush. In order to gain access to assess existing tree'stock and then prepare a tree preservation plan for submittal to local authorities, we are planning to remove the underbrush, briars and.a number of dead and dying shade trees. The bulk of the removal activities will be focused on the removal of exotic and invasive non native species that tend to colonize untended landscapes. This will allow our consultants the necessary access to assess tree stock and tree health including issues such as emerald ash borer infestation, root, rot, anthracnose, etc. We have met with planning and forestry staff to update them on our current development plans, and inform them of our phase one clearing activities. The ultimate goal of our sustainable sites development plan is to preserve more of the existing, valuable and indigenous tree stock than our previous development plan would have allowed, while still meeting our development program needs. We look forward to developing this project, while being good neighbors and good stewards of the land. Should you see anything which you think needs our attention, or should you wish to comment on any part of the project, you could reach me at (cell) 698 -6724 or rabbi@lubavitchindiana.com yg(1J F October 26, 2007 E. Davis Coots Coots Henke Wheeler 255 E. Carmel Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Luhavitch of Indiana 07070012 SU, Dear Mr. Coots: Sincerely, Christine Barton- Holmes Planning Zoning Administrator Department of Community Services cc: Jim Blanchard, Building Commissioner Sarah Lillard, Building Code CITY CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Division of Planning Zoning LETTER of GRANT At the meeting held Monday, October 22, 2007, the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action regarding the Special Use (SU) filed by you for the property located at 2640 West 96 Street. APPROVED: Docket No. 07070012 SU Special Use application for religious uses in a residential district with the Commitments to continue working with the Department of Community Services on screening, especially the parking lot screening, the knee wall alone the parking lot and evergreens to block the parking lot illumination. Please be advised that per Section 21.02.07- Time Limit of the Zoning Ordinance, any person to whom a Special Use is granted by the Board, under the procedures set forth in this chapter, shall have commenced continuous construction of said Speciai Use nr implemented said Special Use within one year.of the date of the granting of the approval or said approval shall become null and void. When applying for any applications for permit; regarding the improvements contained within this approval, ase include -a copy of this letter with your aJvilicatinn materials in carder to assist the Department's review. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 3171571 -2417. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317 -571 -2417