Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
00002566
FEB 10 2009 ADV3808 CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT January 26, 2009 6h. Brunson & Co Office The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 08110009 UV Appendix A: Use Table Office uses in residential district/building The site is located at 501 East 116m Street and is zoned RI/Single-family residential. Filed by Michael Godfrey and Kumiko Brunson, owners. 16TH ST E 116TH ST I`.1 General Info: The petitioner is requesting to use an existing dwelling for office space. The site is 0.43 acres, and is zoned and developed for single-family use. The site has previously been in enforcement for the illegal conversion of the garage into a potential commercial use. Analysis: The request, if approved, would permit the use of an existing dwelling as an insurance office. This type of business does not generally generate a great deal of traffic. 116th Street is typically heavily traveled, particularly during rush hour. It is also characterized by single-family dwellings on the north, and a mix of single-family and low -intensity commercial uses on the south. While there are some concerns with intermingling office and residential uses, the office uses may also serve as a buffer from more intense uses. In addition, it is possible that the l 161h Street corridor will gradually become more commercialized, and small, home -based businesses permit increased commercialization while minimizinI negative impact on adjacent residences. There has already been one office use approved on the same block of 116 Street, with the condition that no sign be placed on the site. The site was the subject of a stop -work order in March 2007, for construction without required approvals and incorrect information submitted for permit issuance. The garage was being remodeled, and it became apparent during inspection that the remodel work was commercial in nature rather than residential. The applicant informed the Department of Community Services at that time that they were going to use the house only as a house, or perhaps have a home occupation as permitted by the ordinance, and withdrew their use variance requests. More recently, an illegal driveway expansion, to provide parking since the garage was converted, has come to light. This issue will need to be resolved with the Permits Department. Horne -based occupations are permitted, provided they follow certain criteria. The main criteria relate to the invisibility of the home occupation — it should not be apparent from the street that a dwelling is functioning as a business rather than a residence. This becomes even more critical when the occupation uses the entire structure. To that end, all outward signs of business use — ground signs, wall signs, extra parking, etc, should be limited or prohibited altogether. While parking in the front yard is a common feature in this neighborhood, as many garages have been converted to extra living space, the petitioner should consider limiting the number of cars at any given time, and encourage carpooling. The Department also asks that the petitioner commit to not placing any signs, beyond the small wall sign that is permitted by the ordinance, on the property. Additional signs are also not permitted by the sign ordinance, and their installation will result in enforcement action. Additional landscaping around the perimeter of the property may also mitigate the driveway expansion and enhance the residential appearance of the site. Low -impact office uses may coexist with residential uses, even beyond the scope of what is permitted as a home - based occupation, but they must not negatively impact their neighbors. Findings of Fact — Use Variance 1. The grant of this variance will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the existence of special condition(s) such that enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because: The house will maintain its outward appearance as a residence, and the proposed use expansion because: the number of animals living on the property far exceeds what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and City Code, and the site measures less than one acre, in a subdivision. The grant of this variance will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: the number of animals living on the property far exceeds what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and City Code, and the site measures less than one acre, in a subdivision. 3. The use or value of the area adjacent to the subject property will be substantially affected in an 2 adverse manner because: the number of animals living on the property far exceeds what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and City Code, and the site measures less than one acre, in a subdivision. 4. The need for the variance does not arise from a natural condition peculiar to the subject property because: The site measures less than one acre, and is located on a cul-de-sac. There is insufficient buffering from neighboring properties, and inadequate room for the number of animals. The granting of this variance does substantially interfere with the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan because: any more than three animals is considered a commercial kennel operation, and requires licensing by the City. The site is within a residential subdivision, in an area indicated to 'remain residential by the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends negative consideration of Docket No. 08080009 UV after all concerns have been addressed, with the condition that the petitioner be allowed a period of no more than one year. CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 23,1998 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order by the president at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Jay Dorman; Dick Klar; Earlene Plavchak; and Charles Weinkauf. Steve Engelking, Director, and Mark Monroe were present representing the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Counsel, was also present. The minutes of the October meeting were approved as submitted. Dick Klar was recognized as a member whose term expires in 1998 and was given accolades for his years of service to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mark Monroe reported that there were Findings of Fact that need to be signed and these will be presented at the next meeting in January. H. Public Hearine: lh. Allstate Office (B-43-98) Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 27.3.2 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to construct a parking lot without curbing. The site is located at 10640 North College Avenue. The site is zoned R- 3/residence. Filed by Kay Brunson of Allstate. Kay Brunson, 10646 College Avenue, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board requesting a variance to construct a parking lot without curbing. Conversations with Mark McCullough of the Hamilton County Highway Department and Joe Tarantino of Weihe Engineers have determined that the best way to construct the parking lot without affecting the drainage is to eliminate curbing. Mr. McCullough has submitted a letter of approval from the Hamilton County Highway Department. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed variance; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Mark Monroe reported that the Department had reviewed the project a few months ago as a use variance. At that time, the plan did include curbing and the Board conditioned approval upon resolution of drainage issues connected with the expansion of the parking lot. The Hamilton County Highway Department, Surveyor's Office, and the petitioner's s:\BZA\minutes\1998nov engineer were not able to present a viable parking lot plan that included curbing. At this time the Department is recommending approval as presented. Dick Klar moved for the approval of V-43-98, Allstate Office, seconded by Earlene Plavchak. APPROVED 4-0. 2h. Colossus Sign (V-44-98) Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 25.7.01-4(1) of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow an off premise ground sign. The site is located at 1081 Third Avenue Southwest. The site is zoned I- I Andustrial. Filed by Lee Papanikandros of Colossus. Lee Papanikandros, owner of Colossus, Inc., 1085 Third Avenue Southwest, appeared before the Board. Mr. Papanikandros' property is located almost directly behind 1081 Third Avenue Southwest and even though there is an access easement, Mr. Papanikandros is requesting an off -premise sign to better identify his business. Mr. Papanikandros specializes in used, European cars, service station and clean-up shop. The proposed sign measures 3 feet by 6 feet, and has a white background with blue letters. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed signage; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Mark Monroe reported to the Board that because the subject property is essentially "land- locked" behind another property and has no frontage on Third Avenue, signage is not allowed without coming before the Board for a variance request. The Department is recommending approval with conditions of size, total height of 4 feet, and location restrictions as proposed by the petitioner. Jay Dorman moved for the approval of Colossus Sign, V44-98, with conditions as specified, seconded by Dick Klar. APPROVED 4-0. NOTE: Items 3h. and 4h. were heard together and voted on separately. 3h. Eaton and Lauth Office Building (SU-47-98) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to allow a 24,000 square -foot office building within a B-3/Business zoning district. The site is located on the east sided of College Avenue just south of I-465. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Pat Taylor of Eaton and Lauth. 4h. Eaton and Lauth Office Building Sign (V48-98) Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 25.7.01-2 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the s:\BZA\minutes\1998nov allowable logo size from 25% to 43% of the sign area. The site is located on the east side of College Avenue just south of I465. The site is zoned B-3Business. Filed by Pat Taylor of Eaton and Lauth. Mike Cook, attorney, 1600 Capitol Center, hidianapolis, appeared before the Board representing Metro Acquisitions, LLC, and the owner of the property, IU Health, Inc. Metro Acquisitions, LLC is one of a number of Eaton and Lauth Companies; if the Board acts favorably on the instant request, those companies would re -locate to the property at 9777 College Avenue. Also in attendance was Pat Taylor of Eaton and Lauth; Mark Hams of American Consulting Engineers; and Craig Hintner of Simmons & Assoc. The petitioner is seeking approval for the construction of a two story office building and a variance that would permit the use of a logo that is approximately 43% of the total sign area; the ordinance permits 25% of the total sign area to be used. A layout of the site was presented on the overhead. The proposed driveway entrance incorporates a 75 foot taper. The parking lot reflects 97 spaces. The building is approximately 90 X 140 feet and consists of two stories. Currently, there is a six foot, board on board fence that separates the property from the residential neighbors. The site is not heavily wooded; there are only two trees on the east property line. There are two beehives located at the rear of the property and a storm sewer located at the east end of the site that runs toward 96`s Street and eventually empties into a creek. There is also electricity available at the rear of the site and a sanitary sewer at College Avenue for use on this site as well as water to the front of the site. The proposed building is two stories, brick and glass. The petitioner is willing to commit to non -opposition to annexation of the property. The petitioner also commits to installing a sidewalk on College Avenue, the full width of the property, if an when sidewalks are installed by adjoining property owners. In connection with the Special Use request, the petitioner believes it is consistent with the character and permitted land uses within the area and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner believes that the proposed use is a great transition from residential to commercial use and complements not only the commercial office neighbors but the residential use to the east as well. The land is relatively flat and without physical limitations that would require special consideration. The intensity and character of this use can be served by the existing infrastructure. At this location, College Avenue is wide enough to accommodate additional traffic generated by this development, particularly with the 75 foot wide tapers on either side. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed use and signage; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. sABZA\minutes\t 998nov Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval pending resolution of all Technical Advisory Committee issues. Also, the Department is recommending that the landscape plan specify two alternative species as opposed to those provided by the petitioner. There is no issue with the amount or location of landscaping, only the types. The sidewalk commitment is clarified as follows: If one or the other adjacent property owners installs a sidewalk, this particular property owner will install his sidewalk. Point of Clarification: Mr. Cook stated that the office building is actually 25,500 square feet of space. Craig Hither of Simmons & Associates stated that the Lighting Plan indicates no lighting behind the building and no wall packs on the building. If lighting is installed, it will be low voltage to highlight the landscaping. Dick Klar moved for the approval of Eaton and Lauth Office Building, SU-47-98, conditioned upon approval of Technical Advisory Committee issues, landscaping, and sidewalks as previously stated; seconded by Earlene Plavchak. APPROVED 4-0. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM. Charles W. Weinkauf, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\BZA\n inutes\1998nov CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AUGUST 24,1998 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order by the president at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Jay Dorman; Dick Klar; Earlene Plavchak; James Quinn; and Charles Weinkauf. Director Steve Engelking, Terry Jones and Mark Monroe were present representing the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Counsel, was also present. The minutes of the July meeting were approved as submitted. F. Communications: Charles Weinkauf reported that the Department had drafted a letter to the president of the City Council requesting that the Council formally consider reviewing and amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding allowable number and size of signs. The Board does not believe it is the proper venue to decide policy on planning and zoning issues, including variance requests dealing with signs. The Department also drafted a letter from the Board to Jay Dorman, Chairperson of the Residential Open Space Task Force, requesting that the Task Force formally consider including minimum development standards for neighborhood recreational facilities and forward their recommendation on these standards to the Plan Commission and City Council. H. Public Hearin: lh. Brookshire Golf Course Signs (V-34-98) Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of 25.7.02-6 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the additional ground signs fronting on 116`s Street. The site is located at the northwest corner of Gray Road and East 116'h Street, the site is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by Tom Marian of Bingham Summer; Welsh and Spilman. Tom Marian of Bingham Summers Welsh and Spilman appeared before the Board representing A-Z Golf Club, d/b/a Brookshire Golf Club. Kim Rademacher, head pro and general manager of Brookshire Golf Club was also in attendance. The ordinance currently allows one sign per entrance for a recreational use facility. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct two signs, one at the comer of 116a' Street and Gray Road, the other approximately one -quarter mile west of the intersection along 1161s Street. The sign at the comer of 116`s and Gray Road will be approximately 6 feet tall, 8 feet wide; the second sign would be no larger than 4 feet square. sABZA\minutes\bza 1998aug Aside from the variances, the signs will conform in all respects to the Carmel Municipal Code. The petitioner commits to a tastefully decorated sign, landscaped appropriate to the surroundings. It is the petitioner's position that the surrounding property will be enhanced and people will be less likely to get lost in the immediate neighborhood looking for the golf course. Not allowing the variance will create practical difficulties. Allowing the signs allows the petitioner to identify his property and direct visitors to its entrance. Brookshire is committed to work with the City to landscape the intersection and make it as attractive as possible where the signs will be installed, and to make sure that the signs are not a safety hazard and not in the right-of-way. The petitioner feels that the current signage is not adequate. Brookshire Golf Course consists of approximately 125 acres and has at least 1,000 frontage feet along 116`s Street and Gray Road with no sign. Brookshire Golf Course has been very involved in the community and worked with the schools and the Chamber of Commerce. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed signs; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. Jim Quinn asked if the petitioner had explored the possibility of a road sign installed by the highway department and paid for by the golf course. Mark Monroe responded that that alternative had not been explored, but it might be a viable course of action. Mr. Weinkauf commented that the proposed signage plan with the landscaping was preferable to just another street sign. Kim Rademacher, resident of Fishers, general manager and head pro of Brookshire Golf Club for 12 years, stated that the Golf Club has been in existence for approximately 28 years. The Club was recently purchased and the previous owners did not want to spend the money to go through the process to install additional signs. The entrance to the golf course is on an interior street in a subdivision and difficult for the general public to find. Earlene Plavchak was understanding of the sign at the intersection of I I6's and Gray Road, but questioned the necessity of the second sign west of the intersection. Mr. Rademacher responded that the 4 foot sign stating "Brookshire Golf Course" will be visible so that by the time the public approaches the intersection, the sign will identify the course. Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending denial based upon the current ordinance requirements. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of V-34-98, Brookshire Golf Course Signs. APPROVED 4 in favor, Jim Quinn opposed. s:\BZA\minutes\bza1998aug 2h. Finance Center Federal Credit Union (V-35-98) Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 30.5.5 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to extend the approval time by one year. The site is located on the north side of East 96`s Street, a 1/4 mile west of Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger. Charlie Frankenberger, 3021 East 98`s Street, Indianapolis appeared before the Board representing the petitioner. Approval is being requested for a developmental standards variance that extends the time for commencement of construction by one year under a previously granted use variance. The credit union was approved for a use variance in May, 1997. The variance was unanimously granted and the request was supported by the neighbors. In February, 1998, the Supreme Court entered a ruling that was detrimental to Federal Credit Unions by restricting their ability to bring in new employee groups; this ruling abruptly halted the Credit Union's plans. Legislation was passed providing some relief to Federal Credit Unions, however, it is not self -implementing and the target date for final rules is 4 to 6 months. On April 30, the Credit Union obtained an extension until November 27, 1998 but with the uncertain time factor, the Credit Union is requesting an extension until November 27, 1999. All previous commitments will remain in place; these have been recorded. Since the granting of the use variance, nothing has changed with respect to the real estate. The petitioner has contacted a neighbor, Mr. & Mrs. Kassenbaum, and she is supportive of the variance but could not be present this evening. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the extension; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. In response to Jim Quinn's questions regarding commitments, Mr. Frankenberger stated that there are three commitments as follows: 1) installation of sidewalks; 2) dedication of land to the highway department; and 3) installation of a green belt buffer. The commitments were written, signed, and recorded. Mark Monroe reported that that Department is recommending approval. Dick Klar moved for the approval of V-35-98, Finance Center Federal Credit Union. APPROVED 5-0. 3h. Allstate Office Building (UV-36-98) Petitioner seeks approval of a use variance to allow an office use within a residential zoning district. The site is located at 10640 North College Avenue. The site is zoned R-3/Residence. Filed by Kay Brunson of Allstate. s:\BZA\minutes\bza1998aug Kumiko "Kay" Brunson of Allstate appeared before the Board seeking a use variance for property located at 10640 North College Avenue for general office use, more particularly, Allstate Insurance Agency, Real Estate and Investments. The property has been used over the last 10 years as a warehouse and workshop next to INDY RC Sales. All adjacent and adjoining property owners have been notified and all are favorable to the office use. The petitioner stated that she is submitted to improving the property and maintaining an attractive appearance. A landscape plan has been submitted. Comment letters have been received from the Sheriffs Dept., Fire Dept., and the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office. It is the petitioner's firm belief that the best use of the property is for a professional office building. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed use variance; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. Jim Quinn commented that this particular property should be rezoned rather than a use variance granted and it should go to the Council. Mark Monroe reported that at the time the Department Report was released, there were two outstanding issues: the long term use of the property, and the drainage plan in conjunction with the paving of the parking lot. The Department recommended to the petitioner that they commit to allowing only general office uses on the property that would transfer to all subsequent owners; this the petitioner has done. The drainage plan is approximately 95% addressed. The County would like an opportunity to review the final site plan that was distributed. The Department is recommending approval subject to the commitment of allowing only general office uses and contingent upon appropriate County agencies approving the drainage plan. Jay Dorman moved for the approval of UV-36-98, Allstate Office Building, upon conditions as stated. (general office uses only and approval of the drainage plan.) APPROVED 4 in favor, Jim Quinn opposed. Old Business: li. Medcheck Sign (V-8-98) Petitioner seeks approval of a developmental standards variance of Section 25.7.02-9(b) of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow an additional wall sign fronting on Old Meridian Street. The site is located at 1200 West Carmel Drive within the Carmel Science and Technology Park (Shepherd Insurance Building). The site is zoned M-3/Manufacturing. Filed by Steve McVicker of Signcraft. Susie Abel, 7915 Bentwillow Drive, Indianapolis, 46239, appeared before the Board representing Community Hospitals of Indianapolis. The petitioner is requesting a variance for an illuminated building sign for Medcheck Carmel located at 1200 West s:\BZA\minutes\bza1998aug Carmel Drive. Also in attendance was Steve McVicker of Signcraft. The proposed sign will be individual letters spelling out "Medcheck" in larger letters and the name of the hospital and logo will be in smaller print above the sign. The sign will be mounted on the west elevation of the building so that it can be readily visible from the intersection of Old Meridian and Carmel Drive. Medcheck Carmel occupies 4,101 square feet of space at its current location in the Shepherd Insurance building on a 1.89 acre parcel of land. The hours of operation are from 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM. There are no street lights and the only lights are from the parking lot. At the time this particular site was selected, the petitioner was told that the ground sign should be sufficient; however, since the petitioner is noted for its patient focus medicine, and feedback from the patients states that visitors to the facility have a difficult time in finding the location. The petitioner believes that an additional building sign would be appropriate. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. There were comments from the Board as to the visibility of the proposed sign. Jim Quinn requested that the Board write a letter to the City Council clearly outlining the deficiencies in the existing Carmel Sign Ordinance. At the time the Sign Ordinance was approved, Mr. Quinn thought these types of facilities did not exist and it is now the Board's responsibility to inform the Council of this particular issue. Jay Dorman asked about hours of operation and whether or not any approval could be tied in with the hours of business only. Mark Monroe reported on a similar variance on Chase Court. Ms. Abel reported that the petitioner is not trying to advertise, they are only seeking identification to help patient's locate the facility; Medcheck is a "not -for- profit" facility. The petitioner was given an opportunity to amend their petition. Mark Monroe reported that the Department has remained consistent over the past four months in recommending denial of the request. The Department would recommend that if the Board is considering an on/off switch on the sign, the petitioner should submit that commitment in written form and have it recorded. Jay Dorman asked if the Board should ask the City Council to provide a recommendation that might affect future variance requests along Carmel Drive. Mark Monroe responded that many of the variance requests are site specific. Carmel Drive is a main aesthetic corridor in Carmel between U.S. 31 and Keystone. The s:\BZA\minutes\bza1998aug Department feels that there is adequate signage, not because it is a personal opinion, but that is what the ordinance allows. The sign is visible from the intersection of Old Meridian and Carmel Drive. Earlene Plavchak asked about the duration of the lease and if the variance were allowed, if it would be for this tenant only. Ms. Abel stated that Medcheck has a five year lease on the premises (or maybe 10 years). The variance would apply only to the Medcheck facility. Jay Dorman moved for the approval of V-8-98, Medcheck Sign, with the following stipulations: If granted, the variance would apply only to the Medcheck tenant; also, the petitioner will provide a written document stating that the illumination of the requested sign will only be from the hours of operation. DENIED 2 in favor, Jim Quinn, Dick Klar, and Jay Dorman opposed. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM. Charles W. Weinkauf, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\BZA\minutes\bza1998aug G`1loviceykF - IN City of Cannel �MDIC•Np Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes - Regular Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008, 6:00 PM The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, August 25, 2008, 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, Earlene Plavchak and Madeleine Torres, thereby establishing a quorum. 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 July 28, 2008 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. Items 2-5h, St. Vincent Sports Performance Center, the Department requested tabling until September 22, 2008. Item 12 h, Sales Diesel-signage, needed a two-day waiver for public notice in the newspaper; all their other notices were correct. Under Old Business Items 2-3i and 4-5i, Monon & Main, Units 3D, 3A & 4F, the Petitioner had submitted a letter to withdraw those items. Items 6-12i Circle K/Shell has requested tabling until October 27, 2008. In light of the fact there would only be three Board members available to hear the request, Item I St. Vincent Heart Center Helipad has requested to be tabled until September 22, 2008. With regard to that, the Petitioner was present to answer any questions. Mr. Molitor stated that as discussed previously, Mr. Hawkins would need to recuse himself from any discussion of Item I St. Vincent Heart Center Helipad. Mr. Hawkins recused himself. Mr. Broach, Vice President, conducted the hearing. He asked about the rules for tabling in the case where there are only three of the five Board members present. Mr. Molitor stated that under Article 7, Section 6 of the BZA Rules of Procedure, if only three out of five members are available to hear an agenda item, the Petitioner can request an automatic continuance until such time as there are four or five members available. This would fall under the category of an automatic continuance and he suggested the Board make a motion to that effect. Mrs. Torres moved to continue Docket No. 08060008 UV, St. Vincent Heart Center Helipad to the September 22, 2008 hearing. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3-0. Mr. Broach stated this Item/Docket would be continued to the September 22 hearing. He thought in order to avoid another automatic continuance; the Board would have two substitute members for this matter. This would give another thirty days for discussion in the interim. Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 The Petitioner confirmed they would be ready to present on September 22, 2008. A couple minutes recess was taken. Mr. Hawkins rejoined the Board. Gl. Report on 1993 Use Variance status - UV-35-93 Mr. Molitor continued the Legal Report. At last month's meeting they had discussed the potential need for an enforcement action regarding UV-35-93 granted to Mr. and Mrs. Mylin. He had been in communication with their counsel. They have agreed and executed written commitments concerning the use and development of the real estate. It contains their commitment that they will comply with all the obligations and conditions that were imposed upon the approval of the Use Variance in 1993. Therefore, he and the Staff recommended that the Board should need to take no enforcement action against the landowners. If the Board so agreed, he requested a motion be made to that affect that no further action would be taken in this matter. If the Board wished to discuss it further, he recommended the item be continued until the end of the meeting. Mrs. Plavchak stated summer is over, school has started and next summer is a long time away. So it is very well and good to say they will not do it anymore. She felt something needed to be done now to make sure that it does not get forgotten by the time next swim season comes around. She was not comfortable with just letting it drop because the rules were there and they were not abided. Mr. Molitor suggested they move the matter to the end of this agenda and the Board could have further discussion as to whether or not anything else needed to be done. Copies could be made of the commitments for the Board members to read. H. Public Hearing: 111. St. Vincent Heart Center Helipad TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22 The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 08060008 UV Appendix A: Use Table Helipad in B6/US 31 Overlay District The site is located at 10330 North Meridian Street and is zoned B6/Business, within the US 31 Overlay District. Filed by Robert A. Hicks and Paul E. Clendenen for St. Vincent Heart Center. 2-5h. St. Vincent Sports Performance Center TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22 The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08070002 V Section 23.B.09.D Sloped roof exceeding 100' without change in plane. Docket No. 08070003 V Section 23.11.8.05.11.1.a Increase in maximum first floor gross floor area over 40% Docket No. 08070004 V Section 27.03.02 Elimination of straight concrete curbs on parking islands Docket No. 08070005 V Section 23.B.12.a Parking between US 31 & 90' build -to line The site is located at 13400 North Meridian St and is zoned S2/Single-Family Residential in the US 31 Overlay. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP for Bremner Duke Healthcare Real Estate. Page 2 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 6-11h. Old Meridian Plaza —Bldg 2 The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08070006 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(1)(a) Bldg height/occupiable floor reduction from required 281/2 stories Docket No. 08070007 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(2)(b) Reduction of required front yard setback Docket No. 08070008 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(4) Reduction of minimum side yard setback Docket No. 08070009 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(5) Reduction of minimum rear yard setback Docket No. 08070010 V Section 20G.05.040(3) Reduction of 75% minimum street frontage Docket No. 08070011 V Section 20G.05.04(G)(3) Location of parking in front of building The site is located at 12863 Old Meridian Street and is zoned Old Meridian/Mixed Use within the Old Meridian District. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Old Meridian, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: Charles Frankenberger. Also present were members of the development team, including architects, engineers and representatives from the owner. An aerial view of the parcel with the site superimposed was shown. The real estate comprises about 2.5 acres and is located on the east side of Old Meridian Street between East Carmel Drive on the south and Main Street on the north. A rendering of the site plan was displayed. They intend to erect two free-standing buildings. One of the buildings will be on Old Meridian Street. It will be 60,000 square feet, with four stories of 15,000 square feet per floor. This approved building was presented at a previous meeting for variances. The building that is the subject of these variances will be east of and behind the approved building. It was indicated as a possible future building on the prior site plan in connection with the review of the approved building. As general background, a Use Variance was granted for a veterinary hospital with an indoor kennel to be located within the approved building. It was later decided to relocate the veterinary hospital from the approved building to the proposed building further from the frontage of Old Meridian. The veterinary hospital is currently located at the site of the Stout Shoe building recently approved for the northeast comer of Main and Old Meridian Streets. In addition to the developmental standards variances requested, the proposed building also requires approvals from the Plan Commission. The requests pending before the Plan Commission are ADLS approval, Plat Amendment, Subdivision Waiver and Zoning Waiver. Renderings of the proposed building were enclosed in the packets. The Plan Commission had comments and suggestions regarding the architecture. They were referred to the September 2, 2008 Special Studies meeting. Regarding the Plat Amendment and the Waivers, it is anticipated the veterinarians will own the proposed building and the land immediately beneath it. The lot lines of the parcel are the footprint of the proposed building. The establishment of this second lot by the veterinarians necessitates the Primary Plat Amendment. Because the proposed building will not have frontage on Old Meridian Street, but will be accessed through cross easements, a Subdivision Waiver has been requested. Because the proposed building is within the Old Meridian Overlay, but does not have frontage on Old Meridian Street, a Zoning Waiver has also been requested. In this regard the Old Meridian Overlay does contemplate buildings on the back of property. They have requested the Waivers in order to clarify the project and to err on the side of caution. Because the perimeter of the lot for the proposed building is the same as the building footprint, they requested the Developmental Standards Variances with respect to front, side and rear yard setbacks. Because front, side and rear yard setbacks are measured from lot lines, there are technically no front, side or read yard setbacks for the proposed building. This does not change the real distances between the buildings and the perimeters regardless of where they draw the lot line around the proposed building. Developmental Standard Variances were also requested to allow a parking lot in front of the proposed building, which puts the parking in back of the approved building along Old Meridian. Variances were needed to allow a reduction in height and occupiable floor requirements and to provide relief from the requirement that 75% of all buildings on the site face Old Meridian Street. Page 3 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 On this site that would be impossible because the approved building occupies most of the frontage on Old Meridian Street. These variances, like some of the requests pending before the Plan Commission, are necessitated by the fact that although the proposed building is behind the approved building with frontage on Old Meridian, it is nonetheless within the Old Meridian Overlay. It was their understanding that they had addressed all concerns of the Urban Forester and the Engineering Department at this stage of the process. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Hohnes gave the Department Report. These variances are due to the unique site design of the project. The building came up in discussion when the first building was before the Board with the vet's office in it. This request would move the vet's office to the building in back which would help further screen the use and any potential noise. The building does meet the Old Meridian Overlay standards as far as building design. Because of the site design it does not meet the requirements for the site design within the Old Meridian District. But it is a unique case and would share landscaping and parking. The parking and landscaping are adequate for both buildings and meets the requirements of the Overlay. The building does not actually have frontage on the Overlay, but it does meet the design standards. The parking in front of the proposed building would be screened from Old Meridian by the approved building. The overall intent of the Overlay is met by this request. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Hawkins remembered some commitments were made with the original approval of the front building about maintenance of the area with walking dogs, etc. Were they included in this project? Mrs. Barton -Holmes acknowledged a couple of the commitments might still be an issue. She believed there was a commitment to provide waste stations for people walking their dogs before or after appointments. The majority of the discussion was about noise, screening and odor. That is less of an issue since it has become a stand-alone building rather than in the approved office building. Mr. Frankenberger stated there was also discussion that the two veterinarian offices would not be in operation at the same time. This would be a relocation of the vet's office. There might be some overlapping during the transition and moving. Mrs. Torres remembered that once they were out of the old veterinarian office, the old building would be razed. Mr. Frankenberger thought that commitment had come from the Stout Shoes project. Mr. Broach moved to approve Docket Nos. 08070006 V through 08070011 V, Old Meridian Plaza - Bidg 2. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 4-0. 12h. Sales Diesel — Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08070017 V Section 25.07.02-05 (b) Number of signs facing right-of-way The site is located at 11590 N. Meridian St. It is zoned S-2/13-6, Light commercial and office uses adjacent to limited access highways. Filed by Amanda Gates of Sign Craft Industries. Page 4 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Mrs. Plavchak moved to suspend the Rules to allow the Public Notice in the newspaper which was two days late. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. Mr. Dierckman arrived. Present for the Petitioner: Amanda Gates. Dee from Sales Diesel was also present. Sign Craft has been in Indiana for fifty years and has enjoyed a long relationship with several Carmel businesses. Their main objective is to provide a quality product to the reputable businesses in the community to not only identify the business but to add to the aesthetic value. This variance is for an additional wall sign to face US 31. Photos of comparable signs in the area were shown. The architecture of the building has several bump -outs and insets at various angles. Even though some of the signs are classified as north - facing, most of them appear to be east -facing toward US 31. They were requesting an appropriate place for the sign due to the length of the fagade and the architecture of the building. Photos of the building facades facing Illinois Street were shown. The Staff comments stated that within two years it is projected that many businesses will want their signs facing Illinois Street. She felt that projection was as important part of business decisions, but in this instance they did not have the luxury to wait two years for Illinois Street to boom with traffic. They would appreciate the opportunity to be able to place their sign facing US 31 where they can insure that the business will get the visibility it needs to succeed within the community. A rendering of the proposed sign was shown. They were upholding all the standards within the Ordinance and sign package as far as size and color specifications. The only deviation at this point is the additional sign facing US 31. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Miss Boone gave the Department Report. The proposed sign does fit within the specified sign package for this center. It will be about 90 square feet; ivory in color with bronze returns like the other signs in the center. The Staff s main concern is that allowing an additional sign to face US 31 will enhance the retail appearance of the corridor instead of the business/office corridor the City is trying to keep consistent in looks and feel. Also Illinois Street is slated to be continued and completed from 1160, Street south to 106a' Street. They felt once this was completed the businesses facing Illinois Street will ask for additional signage. They were trying to keep consistent with the Sign Ordinance. This building would be allowed an additional sign facing Illinois Street. Mr. Hawkins asked if Sales Diesel was an office use. He wanted to know if any of the owners of the building were present. He was concerned if this sign was approved then they would come back for a sign on Illinois Street which he would not be inclined to approve. That could impact the owner's wishes for the building. Ms. Gates stated Sales Diesel is a marketing company. The owner has seen and approved the signage. They understand this variance for a third sign would be maxing out signage they would be allowed on the building. Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 08070017 V, Sales Diesel — signage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and DENIED 2-3, with Mr. Broach, Mr. Dierckman and Mrs. Plavchak casting the negative votes. Page 5 of 17 A Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 13h. Brunson & Co Office The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 08070024 UV Appendix A: Use Table Office uses in residential district/building The site is located at 2050 East 96ih Street and is zoned S2/Single-family residential. Filed by Michael Godfrey and Kumiko Brunson, owners. Present for the Petitioner: Mike Godfrey. Kumiko Brunson was also in attendance. They currently have a home business at this location. He shared a picture of the house which was a rental when they purchased it in 2002. The maintenance had been ignored, but they saw value in the size and location of the parcel. They received a sign variance for the parcel. A picture was shown indicating the improvements they had made to their home. They run a successful real estate and insurance business from their home. Their business has grown. They have no intention of making any physical or cosmetic changes. They intend to continue to occupy the property and will not be changing any way they operate the business. They have already been approached and have had part of their frontage taken through eminent domain by the City. They have continued use of the property, but a sewer drain was placed down the south property line. They were asking to protect the value of the property by getting a Use Variance. They have received notifications from either the State or Marion County on changes and improvements that will be taking place on 1465. They have no intentions of moving or selling the property. They believe the changes they have made have been an asset to the area. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Unfavorable: Ron Schafer, 9604 Maple Drive, three houses east of this residence. About a year and a half ago andther residence on 96a` Street applied for a Use Variance and it was denied. He did not understand some of the reasons for why they wanted the Use Variance. He had lived there for 29 years and maintained his property. It was his understanding you could have a business in a residence as long as you lived in the residence. Mr. Hawkins stated the Department would better be able to answer that. There are certain criteria to have a home -based business. Mr. Schafer felt this was just like a cancer. If this one goes to a business/commercial facility, it will spread down the street. Mr. Godfrey stated in his information in three different places that the surrounding area is currently predominately residential with some residential office conversions. He would be interested in the location of these places. He knew there was one next door to him. Very few know they are running a business in the house and no one is living there. They maintain the property and there is very little traffic in and out. He was just not interested in commercial starting on the street. They had gone through this a few years ago with the Comprehensive Plan which raised a ruckus in their neighborhood. Mayor Brainard had told them before the last election that the Comprehensive Plan was dead. He was not aware of anything happening on 96`a Street as far as the widening. He heard a rumor they were talking about putting a bridge over Westfield Boulevard that would run at some angle across I465 from the roundabout. He had talked to the State Highway Department earlier in the day, but they knew nothing about it. They were just starting to talk about plans for I465 and nothing will start on it until 2012. He did not want a business to start on the street. Rebuttal: Mr. Godfrey felt the complexion of 96'e Street was changing. Most of the growth has taken place east of Keystone Avenue. With the current improvements on Keystone Avenue north of 96`h Street and Page 6 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Meridian in the near future, it will continue to drive more and more traffic across 96`s Street. It will not be as conducive for residential use. They run a quiet and successful business. They felt they will continue to be an asset to the area. They own and maintain other residential pieces of real estate in Hamilton County. He felt this was a good reflection of what they do. He had a high respect for Mr. Schafer and the other neighbors. They will continue to operate a nice responsible business. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. The difference between this variance and the variance referenced by Mr. Schafer is this one has been in operation and continues to operate with very few if any complaints on file with the City. This is also a corner lot which is considered to be better for a residential/commercial conversion. It is typically less disturbing than a mid -block lot. This variance would legally establish and permit some growth within the house itself. A home -based occupation is permitted within certain parameters and percentages of the building. Typically a living room or dining room is permitted to be used. They were granted three variances in 2005 for signs related to the home occupation. Typically the Department does have some concerns with intermingling office and residential uses. In this instance there are a few other conversions on both sides of the street, stretching between Westfield and Keystone. Further east 96`s Street becomes more commercial. It is a very low intensity commercial use within a residential area. It does not generate a great deal of traffic. The use could serve as a buffer. Mrs. Torres asked if the expansion would be strictly office use and no residential or would it just be expanding into other rooms in the house. Mr. Godfrey stated they did not have an expansion proposal or project. They would not be making any physical changes. They only thing that will happen is the continued natural growth of their business through word of mouth. Their marketing budget is very thin. They will not expand into bedrooms or hire employees. They are the only employees. Mrs. Torres was confused as to what they were approving since the business and sign already exist. Mrs. Barton -Holmes stated this variance would give the Petitioner the ability to hire an additional employee. A home -based occupation is limited to one part-time employee in addition to family members and a very small space within the house. This variance would permit their business to grow without continuing to come back each time the business was to expand. They would still need to maintain the residential appearance of the structure. The variance would legally establish the existing commercial use and it would permit expansion only within the house. Any thing additional expansion would need a variance. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08070024 UV, Brunson & Co Office. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 3-2, with Mr. Dierckman and Mrs. Torres casting the negative votes. Mrs. Torres pointed out to Mr. Schafer that the Comprehensive Plan is back on the table. If he has access to the website, he could check it out because it is in discussion again. Page 7 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 14-15h. Beriault Pool The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08070028 V Section 7.04.03.D(i) Reduced rear yard setback Docket No. 08070029 V Section 25.01.01.B.3(b)(i) Reduced setback from easement The site is located at 13820 Smokey Ridge Drive and is zoned RI/Single family residential. Filed by Bill Lambert of PermaPools for Greg and Ann Beriault, owners. Present for the Petitioner: Bill Lambert. These variances are for a residential backyard pool. The placement of the pool abuts a ten -foot drainage/utility easement in the back. There is a twenty -foot rear setback. The Ordinance requires it to be three feet from an easement. This approval would allow them to place the pool within the twenty -foot setback and up to the easement. It would not be within the easement. A site plan was shown. He had met with Fred Glaser in the Carmel Engineering Department. They had walked this easement and some of the easements in the neighborhood. He had assured Mr. Glaser that the swale of the easement would not change. This is a one piece fiberglass 15 by 38 pool. The rectangular portion is 15 by 32 with two small benches on each end. A picture was shown. Pictures of the backyard were shown with the location of the pool and property line indicated. It will be behind the screening between the Beriaults and their neighbor and entirely behind their house. They will have a registered surveyor mark the lines and the easement lines. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. There are several existing pools and similar structures on adjacent parcels in the subdivision. The lots are relatively small in portion to the size of the house and oddly shaped. Without the grant of the variance or building a much smaller pool, the Petitioner would not be able to install the pool they would like to build. If the variances are approved, the Petitioner will need to appear before the Board of Public Works through the Engineering Department for approval to encroach because the pool deck would be immediately adjacent to the drainage/utility easement. The pool would not actually be in the easement and is similar to existing structures and improvements within the subdivision. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mrs. Plavchak asked why the pool could not be located elsewhere on the lot. On the diagram it looked like there was room in another area. That way they would not be encroaching on any easements. Mr. Lambert said there were two reasons. There is an existing 25 feet of screening which would be very helpful. Further down there is no screening, making the pool would be out in the middle of the view of the neighbors. They wanted to leave the remainder of the lot open for other types of use. Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket Nos. 08070028 V and 08070029 V, Beriault Pool. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 4-1, with Mrs. Plavchak casting the negative vote. Mr. Hawkins reminded Mr. Lambert he would need to contact the Board of Public Works for encroachment. Mr. Lambert stated he had spoken with Mr. Glaser and he was not sure an encroachment was needed. Page 8 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Mrs. Barton -Holmes stated he would need to confirm with Gary Duncan in the City's Engineering Department. I. Old Business 1-21 Ditch Rd Horse Stables The applicant seeks the following special use and development standards approvals: Docket No. 08060007 SU Appendix A: Use Table Horse boarding & lessons in Sl District Docket No. 08060019 V Section 25.01.01(B)(8) Riding arena/stables exceeds square footage of primary dwelling The site is located at 13403 Ditch Road and is zoned SI/Residential. Filed by Karen and Kevin Hammeran, owners. Present for the Petitioner: Karen Hammeran. Kevin Hammeran. Drs. Leslie and Sandeep Ahluwalia, contract buyers, and Mary Slade, Legal Counsel, were also present. An aerial of the area was shown with existing riding stables. In the packet she had provided an update since last month's meeting and reference documents. They had made an effort to resolve the concerns of proximity to the existing homes, manure management, traffic and the number of horses. They had changed the design and configuration of the arena and riding stable, met with the concerned parties, provided literature -based educational materials, provided frequency of traffic information and written commitments. In the packet was also an email they had sent after meeting with the concerned parties. They requested to be advised whether or not the commitments provided would resolve their objections. They stated they would be open to any specific additions or revisions for resolution. They had received an email from Jo Bojrab stating she still felt of the operation was too large. They had not received any response from the Wilhelms. The first thing the contract buyer had done was look at alternative configurations for the arena and riding stable that would address the Wilhelm's concerns. They are the neighbor immediately to the north and were concerned about a pasture or parking lot with dumpster being near their home. In the new design the parking area has been moved away from the fence they share with the Wilhelms. The parking, horse trailers and dumpster are now visually shielded from the property lines within the U-shaped area of the newly designed arena and stables. It will be 207 feet from the fence line and approximately 280 feet from the Wilhelm's house. The setback will be in excess of 1,000 feet from Ditch Road and 1,200 feet from the entrance to the Estates of Clay West. They met with the involved parties on August 10 and those minutes were included in the packets provided to the Board members. All comers of the arena and riding stable were staked out so that all the parties could walk the yard to see the physical location of the layout of the site. An aerial view of the layout of the property was shown, indicating the new facilities. She indicated the tree lines that would shield the facility. The u- shaped facility will fall within the 35% parcel coverage guideline. There will be minimal traffic created by the facility. The dumpster will be emptied once per week; the grain delivered once per month; the hay delivered 3 to 4 times per year; lessons would be two to three days per week; the number of boarders present at any given time would be two to three. Only about ten percent of horse owners compete, therefore out of 20 horses boarded only one to two would be going to shows between the months of June and October. She shared the traffic count obtained from the City of Carmel; Ditch between 131s` Street and 1360' (includes their driveway and one entrance to the Estates of Clay West) was 1,921 cars; 1318` between Ditch and Towne (includes the south entrance to the Estates of Clay West) was over 5,000 cars. Their property was pointed out on the aerial map. They are surrounded by subdivisions. In 2002 when they bought the property, it was very common to see people riding their horses up and down Ditch Road. A lot of the traffic comes from other sources. She felt the impact of a riding stable on their property would be extremely limited. A copy of the written commitments was in Page 9 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 the Board member's packets. She highlighted the main points: the existing tree line would stay in place, location and configuration of the arena/riding stable to U-shaped design, limiting the hours of the recreational access and lessons to 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM with a maximum of four horse trailers on site, private riding lessons would be one hour with a maximum of five in any group lessons, no competitions held on site, boarding limited to 20 horses rotated out on pasture with a maximum of three horses per acre of pasture, a vet clinic will not be on the premises, the stalls will be cleaned daily with the waste removed weekly, dumpster screened with stockade fencing a minimum of 100 feet from the property line and 200 feet from the existing homes, exterior lighting would be for safety and maintenance and consistent with the residential character. Dr. Leslie Ahluwalia has bred, raised and trained horses most of her life and is a practicing veterinarian. She was hired by the Indiana Horse Racing Commission to work at the two Indiana racetracks for about three years. A letter of support from another veterinarian was included in the Board's packets addressing the issue of 20 horses on just over six acres. Material was also included in the packets regarding horses, their management and numbers per acre. The requested boarding stable would be one of the smallest in the area. A boarding stable usually has about 40 or so horses, such as Lucky Farm, Rinehart Farm, etc. The number of horses per acre is an issue when they receive their nutrition from the field grasses. When the nutrition is addressed with grain and hay that is no longer the case. When exercise is addressed through an indoor riding arena or all weather exercise, then it is not an issue. The manure will be handled with removal once per week. With regards to delivery traffic, it would be the same for 10 or 20 horses. The boarders and visitors would not cause a lot of traffic. Mrs. Hammeran reiterated a recreational Special Use for a riding stable in the S-1 zoning district is permitted under the Ordinance. They are not asking for the property to be rezoned for business, but only to be able to provide boarding and riding lessons. She felt their findings of fact had been met. Accommodations had been made to the design of the arena and riding stable to address the objections and concerns from the last meeting. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Remonstrance: Dave Coots, attorney, represented the Wilhelm family and the Estates of West Clay. The application requires the Petitioner to establish the Special Use will not be injurious to the public health, safety and general welfare in a substantially negative manner. They believed this use was too intense for the size of the property. From the diagram shown earlier, it was apparent that the area to be occupied by the U- shaped arena/riding stable and pasture is substantially less than one-third of the six -acre parcel. The entryway constitutes an acre by measurement. The house, the pool and the area outside of the horse use area is approximately two acres. The calculation for the area for the stable and horse -use equals 1.56 acres. They felt that was too intense to house 20 horses within that area. It is beyond the scope of the uses within the area. Mr. and Mrs. Fleming on 136`s Street, who submitted a letter, house 3 to 4 horses on 10 acres. He felt policing the commitments put a burden on the adjacent properties. He also believed the use would affect adjacent land use and value because of the items that had to be addressed within the commitments. The fact they had to be addressed, pointed out the significance of the impact. This is a developing residential area with one lot per acre developments. The Special Use has to be consistent with the district. There are horse farms within the district, but they are not confined operations with 20 horses operating on less than a 2-acre parcel. Page 10 of 17 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Andrea Kesler, 24 Circle Drive. She had no connection to the Wilhelms or the Petitioner. She was present for another item on the agenda. They were in the same position in 1993. A lot of promises were made and not kept. She did not want the same situation to be propagated in Carmel. Rebuttal: Mary Slade, attorney with Plunkett Cooney, Indianapolis. When the Hammerans bought this property in 2002, the character of this neighborhood from 1366 Street, 131 a` Street, Six Points and Ditch Road was the horse community. This area was annexed into Carmel in 2003. She felt it was totally inconsistent to say this petition would be inconsistent with the character and use in the neighborhood. There are eleven existing stables and farms within that area. Two of those eleven stables have riding stables. They range from farms having small bams with small animals to farms with large operations of 40 horses on ten acres. The packet had outlined the strength of the proposed commitment and also the potential purchaser's background. The proposed purchaser/resident is a licensed veterinarian who must maintain her integrity. It is physically suitable for the premises because of the character and nature of the surrounding area. She felt that basically the City of Carmel has inherited horse country and this property is in the middle of it. There would be economic detriment if the Board decided against this petition in the middle of horse country. Then horse country would start deteriorating in this area that was dedicated to this type of use before and after the annexation into Cannel. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. Any riding arena or stable would require a special use and variances based on the size of the animals and size of the building needed for a riding arena. This area is characterized by small farms with barns and stables and other horse farms which vary in the amount of acreage and number of horses. This particular six -acre site would be heavily screened. The buildings are not visible from Ditch Road. With the tree line, the back of the property is not visible from the road. The buildings would be visible primarily by the adjoining property owners. The proposed U-shaped arena would screen any horse trailers and dumpster to further mitigate any potential impact on adjoining property. The Petitioner has committed several restrictions regarding the amount of traffic, number of lessons, size of lessons, and types of uses on the site. While the number of horses proposed is high, the Petitioner does seem to be qualified to be able to manage that number of horses on the site. The use would be consistent with the surrounding area. With the recorded commitments, the existing screening which is to be preserved, and the close configuration of the arena, the Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Dierckman asked how many horses were in the Petition at last month's meeting. Mrs. Barton -Holmes confirmed it was also 20 horses, same as presented at this meeting. Mr. Broach asked for a review of some of the other operations in the area and how many horses, how many acres, etc. Mrs. Hammeran pointed out the arenas and riding stables within their block. Rinehart's is on 141 " Street with 50 stalls on 10 acres with an indoor arena and stable. There is a subdivision located across the street. Lucky Farms is at 96`s and Ditch with 40 horses on 10 acres. A new gated community is being built on adjoining property. She did not feel developers would be putting in new gated communities and subdivisions next to the properties, if the horses would be a detriment to their property values. Page 11 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Mr. Broach asked Dr. Ahluwalia if her veterinary practice was off -site. If so, what would happen when she was away from the property during the hours of 8:00 am to 8:00 pm? Would boarders still come, would there still be lessons? Dr. Ahluwalia confirmed her job was off -site. There could be lessons while she was away, but she did not plan for that at this time. The boarders could come any time between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm to ride and bathe their horses, etc. Mr. Dierckman wanted to see the aerial view of the Rinehart property. How long had they been there? Mrs. Hammeran stated they had been there before the subdivisions were built. The same was true for Lucky Farms. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket Nos. 08060007 SU and 08060019 V, Ditch Rd Horse Stables. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins. Docket No. 08060007 SU was APPROVED 5-0. Docket No. 08060019 V was APPROVED 4-1, with Mr. Dierckman casting the negative vote. 2-3i. Monon & Main, Unit 3D. WITHDRAWN The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket Nos. 08030016 V Section 15.26 of PUD Z-462-04 non-residential uses on 2°" & Yd floors Docket Nos. 08030028 V Section 2.13.B of PUD Z-462-04 2-car garage requirement The site is located northeast of Third Ave NW and Main St., and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Mr. and Mrs. Ardalan for Soori Gallery. 4-51. Monon & Main, Units 3A & 4F. WITHDRAWN The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket Nos. 08030014-15 V Section 15.26 of PUD Z-462-04 non-residential uses on 2°" & Yd floors Docket Nos. 08030026-27 V Section 2.13.3 of PUD Z-462-04 2-car garage requirement The sites are located northeast of Third Ave NW and Main St., and are zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Mr. and Mrs. Ardalan for Soori Gallery. 6-12i. Circle K/Shell TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 27 The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals Docket No. 08030019 V Section 23F.05.01B Build -to tine greater than 10' Docket No. 08030020 V Section 23F.07.02 Height under 26' Docket No. 08030021 V Section 23F.07.01 One occupiable floor Docket No. 08030022 V Section 23F.08.01 Floor Area Ratio minimum 0.5 Docket No. 08030023 V Section 23F.06.02 Frontage minimum 70% Docket No. 08030024 V Section 23F.15.02 Parking located in front of building Docket No. 08030025 V Section 23F.11.03 Landscaping & screening The site is located at 1230 South Range Line Road and is zoned B3/Business, within the Carmel Drive/Range Line Road Overlay. Filed by Donald Fisher of Insight Engineering for Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC. Page 12 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 G1. Report on 1993 Use Variance status - UV-35-93 Discussion was held regarding Item GI. UV-35-93. Mr. Molitor stated he had given copies of his letter to the Mylins Counsel to Mr. Hollibaugh for review, along with the Commitments to be executed. In addition there was a Department Report. He recommended the Board make a motion to conduct a Public Hearing on the matter. Mrs. Torres asked if the Mylins were present. Mr. Dierckman moved to conduct a Public Hearing for UV-35-93. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Broach asked if the neighbors had seen the commitments. Had the Mylins already agreed to the commitments at the Department's request? Mr. Molitor stated in his opinion and the Department's opinion these commitments reflect the conditions that were imposed by the Board in 1993. However, there were no written commitments signed or recorded at that time. All they have gone on in the last fifteen years are the recollections of what the Board had imposed at that time. At this point they have been reduced to a written form exactly as the conditions the Board had imposed in 1993. The public can make comments as to whether the commitments are adequate at this point. Mr. Broach asked if there was anything additional or was this just reflective of the 1993 agreement. Before the public got an opportunity to comment, he wanted them to know what they were commenting about. Mr. Molitor summarized the commitments. "The owners acknowledged that the Board granted them a variance of use on or about August 23, 1993 which allows them to utilize the real estate, in particular the outdoor swimming pool located on the real estate, to conduct private swimming lessons. As a condition of the Board's approval and in accordance with Indiana Code 36-7-4-9-18.5 the owners commit that all lessons will be conducted between the hours of 9:00 am and 12:30 pm and during a period of not more than nine consecutive weeks each season between the dates of May 22 and August 15. The owners further commit that they shall instruct all persons with whom they do business that they shall comply with all parking and traffic regulations of the City of Carmel." The commitments go on and indicate that they are binding on the owners and subsequent owners of the real estate if the real estate would ever be sold. The Staff is authorized to record the commitments with the County Recorder. It gives the Board formal authority to enforce the commitments, as well as the Department without the Board's approval. He thought the Department's approach was to get the Board's input, feedback and direction before taking action on its own. The original commitments were signed earlier in the day. They had not been recorded, but were in suitable form for recordation. Dave Coots represented the Petitioner. The commitments presented by Mr. Molitor had been signed and encumbered the property. They were premised upon the use variance that was granted in 1993. Since that time there has been considerable variation over the summers from year to year as to the length of lessons. It grew out of the fact that the school became more and more popular with more students. Mr. and Mrs. Mylin are Carmel teachers and use their summers for swim instructions. They have expanded the school. When it was brought to their attention by Mr. Brennan at the behest of Page 13 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 adjoining property owners, an agreement was worked out with the City. The agreement would allow the Mylins to fulfill the commitments they had made to students and also the commitments they had made in 1993 would be acknowledged and reverted to. Those are the commitments that are ready to be recorded after approval by the Board. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the commitments. Remonstrance: Jay Craig, 22 Circle Drive, across the street from the Mylins. An aerial of the area was shown. Fifteen years ago they had supported the Mylins and their request to give swimming lessons, because of the limited hours, number of students and just three instructors. They had been amazed at the Mylins success. They have grown a few lessons into a major business without regard for the impact on the neighborhood. The neighbors have not been able to enjoy their summers for many years. With the success of the Olympics there is no doubt they will be able to expand their lessons even further by going to another pool in the neighborhood. All the adjacent property owners were at this meeting because the Mylins refuse to recognize that the business is no longer a small summer sideline business for teachers. As a small business owner he knew how hard it was for someone to make the commitment to move to a new facility that can accommodate an increased clientele. They are sorry they have been forced to ask the Board to enforce the commitments and revoke the variance. Robert Lennon, 26 Circle Drive, across the street. He indicated the street on the aerial. It has become a blind corner with overgrown bushes in the City easement along the Mylin's property. Their commercial swimming operation runs seven day a week, starting at 8:00 am and ending at approximately 4:30 pm, sometimes 5:30 pm. The street has become their parking lot with a minimum of five cars and up to eight to twelve cars. The Mylins place 15 to 18 orange cones along their property line all summer. They had permission from one neighbor to park one student's car in their parking lot. Now that neighbor's lot has five or six cars at a time. There is a furniture refinishing business at the end of the street. Customers park there and walk down the street. They also park in front of his house and walk across the Mylin's property to an adjacent swimming pool that does not have a variance. They congregate in the street for up to 30 minutes after lessons. The lessons are supposed to be 30 minutes long, so every thirty minutes there is another eight to twelve cars coming in. When he tries to get into his own driveway, he is treated rudely by the customers. They change their clothing in the streets. There are five to twelve cars at a time with two to three kids in each car. This goes on all day long. There are kids screaming in the pool all day long. The swimming instructions can be heard all the way back to the Morton. This is a major commercial swimming operation; it is not a school. It is a big money machine. There is no one policing this operation. No one comes by at 12:30 pm seven days a week and tells them they have to stop. Carmel Police have been called for parking violations. The cars park in front of the fire hydrant. One afternoon two police officers came through and there were four or five cars. About ten minutes later the fire hydrant was blocked. He has not seen one ticket written. It was completely out of control. They do not abide by the set rules. There is no one to call at 12:30 pm, 2:00 pm or 8:30 am to report violations. They will be back next summer doing what they want, when they want and however they want. The neighborhood is tired of being bullied. He wondered about liability. He cannot back out of his driveway because cars are blocking it. Parents pull up and let the kids out who run across the street. It is a narrow street. His trash has not been picked up several times this summer because the trash truck cannot get through. His yard has ruts from the UPS truck, trash truck, utility trucks etc. going through the lawn to get around the cars. Should he take his trash to City Hall or to the Mylin's when the trash truck cannot get through? Do the neighbors need to get umbrella policies to take care of the liability? He felt the City had some liability because they have allowed the Page 14 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Mylins to ignore the variance. There was no one to call to get this stopped. Andrea Kesler. 24 Circle, adjacent to the pool area. She had a copy of the Mylin's application for the variance in 1993. They very explicitly state that their hours will be 9:00 am to 12:30 pm, only eight to nine weeks, only Mr. and Mrs. Mylin would teach and possibly one other certified instructor. She also had a copy of the minutes from the hearing with Mr. Coots confirming these conditions. Also there would be three students maximum, and parking would be in the Mylin's driveway. These were the conditions established in 1993. They agreed that teaching children to swim was a good thing. No one wants a child to drown. Even though their children knew how to swim, they sent them to the Mylin's for lessons. As the closest neighbor to the pool, they felt they could live with the conditions stipulated by the Mylins. But then the Mylins turned their good intentions of teaching children to swim into a big business by operating outside the conditions of their variance. This affected the safety of their neighborhood and disrupted their lives. That was when it became obvious that the Mylin's business needed to be removed from their residential neighborhood. The Mylins started teaching on Saturdays and Sundays and expanded their business hours from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, they increased the number of instructors, they increased the number of students, they increased the number of weeks of instruction and this year they even increased the number of pools they used. That caused the neighbors to be at the mercy of the Mylin swimming schedule all summer. Ever since the Mylins started this business, the neighbors never have a quiet holiday. They teach on all those days. Kids are constantly crying and screaming and the instructors are yelling over them. It makes it unbearable to outside in their yard. Over the years when they have had outside work done, they could not stand in the driveway to talk to contractors because of the noise coming from the pool. They have to have those discussions inside. If the Mylins had adhered to the hours of operation, they would schedule appointments before 9:00 am or after 12:30 pm. The Mylin's business clients attest to the wonderful job they are doing teaching children to swim. But these clients are only affected by the noise, traffic congestion and parking issues for 30 minutes a day for five days. How many of them would tolerate this activity in their neighborhood all day, every day, all summer? The Mylins have ignored multiple warnings from the City and an appeal from the neighbors. They have made promises to comply with the variance conditions, but they have continued to demonstrate they have no intention to comply with their variance conditions. On March I" at a neighborhood birthday luncheon, Linda Mylin had said they would only teach until noon. But when the lessons started in May, they ran from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm. Their actions indicate they care only about the money the business generates and are oblivious to the hardships created for the neighborhood. This was why the neighbors felt the Mylins will never comply with the conditions of their existing variance. The business needs to be moved out of the neighborhood and into a facility that can better accommodate it. The only way to insure the business was moved out of Circle Drive was to revoke the 1993 variance. They felt if the Mylins were given another chance to honor the variance conditions, they will overstep the conditions again next May. She gave the copy of the variance application to the Department to be copied. Alice Craig, 22 Circle Drive. She showed a layout of the subdivision of 29 homes. She indicated all the neighbors who were present for this hearing. The owner of the driveway being used for parking is a 95-year old gentleman who is in the hospital. A residential neighborhood should not be impacted by a business. The Mylins have taken over this neighborhood. Rebuttal: Mr. Coots stated what they had heard at this hearing pointed to the execution and entry of the commitments that are recordable and do have more of an enforcement mechanism. He was aware of one letter last year sent to the Mylins about the extended hours of operation. There was one letter in Page 15 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 June of this year that brought this matter before the Board at this hearing. The Department did not give a report. Mr. Broach asked if the Board could revoke a variance. Mr. Molitor stated they could not revoke a variance granted fifteen years ago on their own initiative. He would prefer to discuss in Executive Session the Board's authority to initiate litigation with regard to enforcement of the conditions that were imposed fifteen years ago. Mr. Broach pointed out the commitments covered the time period, May 22 to August 15 and it covers the time during the day, 9:00 am to 12:30 pm. But it did not cover the number of instructors and the number of students for intensity. He wondered why that was not incorporated into the commitments. Mrs. Torres stated the original variance did cover the intensity. Mr. Hawkins wanted a copy of the original application and minutes for that reason. If the original stated three students and parking in the driveway, he would like to see that incorporated into the new commitments. Mr. Broach felt another disturbing issue to him and possibly the other Board members was the fact that they adopt commitments and no one enforces them. There are City employees in the Department whose job is to enforce these commitments. There should be a better mechanism, so that the commitments the Board insists on are adhered to by the Petitioner. Mr. Dierckman stated there is not enough Staff to enforce these commitments all over the City. They need to approve things that can be enforced. They cannot revoke the variance, so what can they do other than sue on the City's behalf? Mr. Hollibaugh stated the Department had talked about putting a time limit on any Use Variance. Then the Petitioner would have to come back to the Board. They could check to make sure that everything was being conducted according to the variance or commitments. They do have to rely a lot on the public to let the City know about violations. When that happens the Department does the best they can. They work with the Petitioner to either come back to the Board for a review/update or use the Court for compliance. Mr. Dierckman asked if the neighbors could sue on behalf of the City. Mr. Hollibaugh did not know what the neighbors could do. The City can write tickets or site them in City Court. Mr. Hawkins confirmed it clearly stated these would be one-half segments with three students per class, occasionally employing a third teacher, with parking spaces in the drive to accommodate those present for each one-half segment. However, in the overlap period there have been cars parking along the roadside at the end of Circle Drive and traffic flow is not impaired. That was the fifth paragraph on page 13 of the minutes of the August 23, 1993 meeting. It seemed to him that at a minimum, these should be entered into the current commitments. Or the commitments should not be recorded because it appeared the minutes from the hearing were more restrictive. Page 16 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Mrs. Torres was extremely frustrated to know the Board approved something expecting people to uphold their commitments. She felt the Mylins just wanted to get the Use Variance and they knew all along they were not going to obey the commitments. The Board was stuck because they could not revoke the variance. What action could they take? Why was the Board hearing this? The situation needed to be remedied. Mr. Molitor was sorry to put the Board off, but he would prefer to convene in Executive Session to discuss what action they might take with respect to litigation, instead of discussing it in a public session. Mr. Dierckman moved they meet in Executive Session. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Hawkins preferred the commitments not be recorded. He was afraid they would supersede what the hearing reflected which was more restrictive. Mr. Molitor reminded them it required 48 hours notice for an Executive Session. Mrs. Plavchak asked if it was something they needed to act on right now or were the Mylins back in school and it would be an issue that needed to be addressed before next year. Mr. Hollibaugh was informed the lessons were to end on or about August 15`s. I New Business There was no New Business. K Adjournment Mrs. Plavchak moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM. Connie Tingley, Secretary James R. Hawkins, President S:Toard of Zoning AppealsNinutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2008/20080825.nf Page 17 of 17 CITY OF CARMEL JAMF,s BRAINARD, MAYOR LETTER of GRANT June 24,2008 Rex Neal Printing Plus 7433 Westfield Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46240 Re: Printing Plus — 08050006 UV Dear Mr. Neal: At the meeting held Monday, June 23, 2008, the Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action regarding the Use Variance (UV) filed by you for the property located at 505 East 116th Street. APPROVED: Docket No. 08050006 UV Use Variance for office uses in a residential district with the Commitment to use the garage for employee parking. 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 Community Services DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571 .2417, FAx 317.571 .2426 MICHAEL P. HOLLIBAUGH, DIRECTOR F �I h l9 J ; tD 11h La ahii coSohSoholohlli n 0 _ s I N V O\ ~ N tD to a; has CO,i tD yN� t O Q N R fft 7 N boh�1 i gOMll ' �oh�► I I II 7 I F COQf Q N N t0 N I N i N F7 M n 5'asn' Sn j59sl4thil t�f�wj E.lati ash►► 3 t-4 of Q TN Gty of Cannel /NOIAlt Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, June 23, 2008 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, June 23, 2008, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members in attendance were Kent Broach, Leo Dierckman, James Hawkins, Madeleine Tones, and Alternate Alan Potasnik, thereby establishing a quorum. Christine Barton -Holmes and Rachel Boone represented the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2008 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0, with Mr. Potasnik abstaining. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the items that were being tabled: Items 19-20h, Prairie Trace Softball Complex until July 28; Item 21 h, Mueller Property South Underground Limestone Operation until July 17 Special Meeting; Itemsl-2i, Monon & Main, Units 3A, 31), & 4F and Items 3-9i, Circle K/Shell until July 28. Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. With regard to the pending litigation, two of the Board members did conduct a site visit earlier in the day regarding the operations. Two more of the members will visit the site on Thursday. An Executive Session has not been scheduled before the Special Meeting on July 17. The Petitioner, Martin Marietta, has given Public Notice to the neighboring property owners so that the meeting can go forward on July 17. If any of the Board members have questions regarding this issue, they can contact Mr. Molitor or Mr. Babb. With respect to this meeting's agenda, in order to keep as many Board members in participation as possible, he recommended re -ordering the agenda. He suggested moving Items 18h, Cherry Tree Softball Complex, and 1-4i, Stout Shoes Buildings, to the beginning of the Public Hearings. Mr. Dierckman moved to adjust the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Hawkins acknowledged the passing of former BZA Board member, Chuck Weinkauf, with a moment of silence. Mr. Weinkauf was dedicated to the City and had made a significant contribution to Carmel. H. Public Hearing: 1811. Cherry Tree Softball Complex The applicant seeks the following special use amendment approval: Docket No. 09050036 Appendix A, Use Table Amendment of existing special use The site is located at 13989 Hazel Dell Parkway and is zoned S1/Single-Family Residential. Filed by William E. Payne, ALA of Fanning/Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Pagel of 22 it Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Representing the Petitioner: Ann O'Hara, attorney with Church Church Hittle & Antrim. The layout was shown of the current softball facility built in 1989. They are requesting to amend their Special Use to provide for the construction of improvements and enhancements for the facility. The site plan of the improvements was shown. One of the goals is to move the home plate area away from the adjacent surrounding neighborhood. They will be adding some illumination and speakers, but they will not be as intrusive to the surrounding neighborhood. These improvements are necessary because the girls' softball facilities have been lacking. It is very important for the school district to accomplish these improvements. The School Board approved these improvements at their May meeting. Also in attendance were Roger McMichael and Ron Farrand from the school district. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Favorable: Michael McGinley, President Carmel Dad's Club, 5459 E. 1319f Street. Carmel Dad's Club is 100 percent in support of this project. They believe this facility will be excellent after the improvements. It will be something to be proud of and address the badly needed equality of sports for boys' baseball and girls' softball. Brian Poindexter, 13921 Wildcat Drive, General Commissioner for the Carmel Dad's Club Softball program. He urged the Board to pass this plan which had already received approval of the School Board. It will enhance the ability to provide athletic activities for young girls in the Carmel Dad's Club as well as the high school team (members and coach in the audience). He lives across the street from this complex. He felt the School Board had done their due diligence in trying to minimize the impact of this facility on the neighbors. He felt once the facility was completed the adjacent neighbors would also welcome it. Unfavorable -Organized: Tara Ascioti, 14156 Skylark Court, parent of a Chevy Tree Elementary student. Also present was Joe Loomis, 14349 Avian Way, a 10-year Carmel resident. They represented a mix of residents who opposed the proposed expansion of the softball complex. They represented 274 residents who signed the petition, mostly parents of Cherry Tree students; 30 residents from the second petition who reside along the perimeter of the property; and others who will be living with the results of this decision. Item #7 on the Petitioner's application states this will be a renovation of the existing softball complex. The drawings submitted contradict the point that this is a renovation. It is a huge expansion. She felt the Petitioner's Findings of Fact should be challenged on each of their five points. Her group had a response for each point and suggestions for revisions for an acceptable renovation. Item #1 physical suitability of the premises: A photo was shown of the amount of property that is currently unusable by the students. A second photo indicated the amount of property that will be further lost behind the 8-foot fencing to which the students and community will not have free access. The existing use will change and it will change by significantly expanding the amount of property controlled by the Carmel High School program and the Carmel Dad's Club program. This reduces the amount of property available for play areas by both the elementary students and the neighborhood. Cherry Tree Elementary is not physically suited to perform both its primary use and the proposed expanded special use on the site. The expansion to three or four fenced fields is not a renovation. The primary play area located on the two eastern fields between the playgrounds will be taken away from the elementary students and the community with this proposal. They suggested the School Board consider a potentially acceptable renovation rather than the proposed expansion. They proposed an upgrade including a possible re -orientation of the current two fenced Page 2 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 fields along the western perimeter of the property. This meets the definition of a renovation and protects the eastern greenspace for the primary use by the school. Item #2 cost benefit to the community: The Petitioner has worked to modernize the lighting and sound systems. The group appreciated that effort, but the issue is not about lights and sound. The 5000 square feet, two-story structure proposed will sit in the middle of the open greenspace on the property. The current building sits on the western perimeter of the property and is adjacent to the neighborhood tennis courts, swimming pool and parking lot. Currently the majority of residents do not look out their window and see the structure. The expanded building would be visible to more properties. They felt it would have a negative impact on community property values. The proposal's cost of $2.5 million will result in a loss of publicly accessible softball fields and greenspace by the students and the community, all in an effort to situate the new concession stand in the middle of the four fields. They suggested building the new structure in the location of the current one and keeping the middle of the property unfenced for elementary school use. Item #3 compatibility with existing uses: The primary use of this property is for an elementary school and not a high -intensity, high -use sports complex. Currently students and community residents use the two eastern fields that will be replaced by the competitive fields. It is unrealistic to think that the new fenced fields will be used by teachers supervising up to 100 students per recess period. They suggested upgrading the two western fields to state -of -the art fields, eliminate the plans for the eastern field and restrict any future competitive fenced eastern field. The group's proposed renovation kept the property immediately adjacent to the school's main western entrance and exit available to the students and the community. Such a renovation would require permanent restrictions that only the two western fields are fenced, lit and amplified. The use of the two western fields would be permanently restricted to never occur before 9:30 AM or after 8:00 PM to be compatible with existing residential uses. Joe Loomis continued the presentation at this point. His property is on the northern boundary of the elementary school. Item #4 adequacy of storm drainage and safety: The current above -ground detention basin is not used by the school because it is often too wet and the grade is too steep. It is used by Carmel Dad's Club when it is dry. It cannot really be counted as greenspace for the school. The proposal then leaves very little greenspace that is usable by the children. His group had mentioned in their packet that the current detention basin already overflows onto adjoining properties on the northern side. The Petitioner has not submitted a study about increased storm drainage in the area and any improvements that are planned. Item #5 vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises: This is the greatest concern. Both the current and proposed access roads are unacceptable and dangerous. They pose a safety risk that must be addressed. Maybe in 1990 the limited use of this elementary school, as a high school facility with ten home games a year and no multi -team tournaments sponsored by the high school or Dad's Club, would permit such a dangerous condition for an emergency access road immediately adjacent to a children's playground on the north. The Petitioner is now proposing a second access road to be installed through the middle of the main south student play area and next to the south playground. The proposal allows for over 1000 people on the school campus at the same time. If this expansion is accepted, there is much more likelihood that emergency vehicles will be required than they were 18 years ago. Short of moving the expanded complex to another site, which they would welcome, they do not have a proposed solution to this critical problem and the Petitioner has not presented one. They suggested that parking and traffic studies needed to be conducted so they would know the impact of the vehicular and pedestrian Page 3 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23,2008 traffic. The campus will now become a major sports complex and will not continue unchanged as the Petitioner contended. The current situation is unacceptable and the expansion plan exceeds the primary use of the site as a neighborhood elementary school. It also exceeds the expectation of an S-1 residential neighborhood. They do not know the traffic impact. The study received from the Petitioner clearly shows that the number one user of the campus is the Carmel Dad's Club; the number two user is the high school; and the number three user is the elementary school. He felt this was the opposite of how the campus should be prioritized. These are three different entities and the Carmel Dad's Club is not the Petitioner. The BZA is in a special position to require this study and guarantee that the elementary school will always be the primary user. He felt the vehicular/pedestrian traffic study should be conducted when the elementary school is in session and the high school and Dad's Club softball programs are in season. They asked for restrictions that do not exceed the current parking capacity and the Petitioner not be permitted to expand parking as a solution. They did not want the limited greenspace covered with parking. The group supported Carmel Dad's Club and girls' softball on all levels. They would even support an expanded complex for the girls like the one shown at Ben Davis High School. However, the Ben Davis complex is not in the middle of a residential neighborhood and is not co -located on an elementary school campus. They do not oppose the expansion, they oppose the location. They felt this was a precedent -setting matter. Cherry Tree has had 18 years of incremental, unregulated minor expansions. Marcia Roberts, 5307 Woodfield Drive South, Co -President Cherry Tree PTO. She was speaking on behalf of the current PTO Executive Board and last year's PTO Executive Board. She felt she spoke for over 600 elementary students who attend Cherry Tree. The softball complex affects this group. The current Cherry Tree teachers responded that the current greenspace is used everyday during recess by hundreds of children. If the complex is approved, it will be fenced off and become off limits. Initially the Administration was going to add an underground tank to alleviate the drainage problem in the northwest corner of the property. This would then be accessible for students during recess. But the tank was too expensive and that option and that greenspace are no longer on the table. The school administration states some other elementary schools do not have much greenspace. That is unfortunate, but the schools should not be taken down to the lowest common denominator in terms of the area for children to play. They would not do that with regards to academics and they should not do that with school grounds. It is not just parents and neighbors who are concerned about the expansion of the softball complex. Cherry Tree students of all ages took it upon themselves to start a petition against the softball complex proposal. They obtained over 300 signatures from fellow students. Students have written letters to the School Board; they have attended School Board meetings; and they have written reports on this topic for classroom assignments because they are upset about the negative impact this proposal will have on all Cherry Tree students. Please remember fast and foremost that this is an elementary school. They appreciate the upgrades to the playgrounds, but they are still concerned with the loss of greenspace and the potential safety issues. It is true that the softball facilities need to be improved, but they did not feel placing the high school fields at the back door of the elementary school was the right thing to do. The Public Hearing was closed. Rebuttal: Ms. O'Hara appreciated the remonstrators' comments and concerns. The proposed site plan was reviewed and analyzed by the School Board. The School Board heard the comments from the PTO and the students. In evaluating their decision, they felt it was most prudent for the school district to use existing facilities and to improve those facilities. With the regards to the greenspace, some of the area Page 4 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 will be used for construction. The greenspace at Cherry Tree is more than any other elementary school in the Carmel school district. The school district is committed to improve the playground facilities at the school so that they are equal to the existing playground facilities at the other elementary schools. From the packet, the school district, along with the Carmel Dad's Club, has made a commitment for a schedule in terms of hours of usage of the facility. Those hours will remain the same unless changed by the School Board. Unlike other developers, the School Board does not have the opportunity for location. They have to look at long-range plans and this was the designated area for the softball complex. They have approved the site plan. They have reviewed the issue and determined this is the best place for this improvement, as opposed to starting over at a new location. This is not an expansion, but an improvement of the existing facility. The use as a softball complex will continue. This is not a Special Use application, but an Amended Special Use application. This use has been in place since 1989. This is not a new use for this particular land. With regards to drainage issues, the Petitioner plans to discuss these concerns with City Engineering. The Petitioner needs the BZA approval to go forward with the improvements in accordance with City standards. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. The Department had provided some Google Earth maps of the existing Cherry Tree facility, the existing Ben Davis facility, and some photographs of both facilities for comparison. The Department took a long hard look at this request to see if it merited going before the BZA Board or if it was minor enough for the Director's decision. The Department does consider it to be a reconstruction of the fields. The use and facilities are already there. The fields are proposed to be re -configured so that home plate faces inward and away from the residential areas. The outfields are facing toward the residential areas. Typically home plate is the noisiest part of the field. Currently the lighting and loud speakers on the site use outdated technology. There is a lot of noise and light spillage into the surrounding residential areas. The technology proposed to be used, which is similar to the Ben Davis facility, would almost eliminate light spillage to surrounding areas. She believed the Board had a map indicating how the light going off the property lines would affect mainly the swimming pool and tennis court areas and would be limited mainly to the northern fields. As part of the research, the Department went to the Ben Davis fields in the evening when the fields were lit. The light was pretty much limited to the property line. There was no light spillage with the new technology. It is also similar to the lighting on Michigan Road. From Marion County to Hamilton County, the light pollution diminishes greatly. The new loudspeakers will cut down on the amount of noise, which was one of the complaints. The Department recognizes that the proposed facility would certainly be an improvement over the existing facility. It would benefit the community as a whole, but care should be taken so that impacts from the use do not overly impact the surrounding residential areas with regard to the noise, light and traffic. The Department believes the new speaker and lighting systems will make the site more accommodating toward the surrounding residential areas. The schedule submitted indicates only two summer tournaments held for the school and that most games would end by 8:30 PM in the spring and 9:00 PM in the summer. With Daylight Savings Time, it is unlikely the lighting would need to be used very often. The Department recognized that drainage is a current concern. With the addition of hard surfaces, the Department of Community Services and the Department of Engineering will continue to work with the school. Underground detention is extremely expensive, so they are encouraging the Petitioner to look at alternatives such as using a mixture of porous pavers to help mitigate the additional hard surface and try to improve the overall drainage situation. By law, they cannot make the drainage situation worse. It has to be at least the same, if not better. The south parking area is proposed to be re -striped to increase the parking capacity. Currently the lot is striped for buses, which presents some confusion for parking for the games. The Department urged the School Board to look at any and all safety measures to protect the emergency access route from any adjacent facilities that the school children might be using. There will not be a lot of overlap Page 5 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 between the use of the school and the ball games. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Dierckman asked to see the schedule indicating the lighting and sound. Mrs. Barton -Holmes stated it should have been included in the packet. If not, she did have a copy in the file. Mr. Hawkins asked for an explanation of the sound level diagram. Bill Payne, Fanning Howey Associates, architect for the project. Two diagrams were included in the packet. The first was an analysis on their part of what they believed to be the current performance of the loudspeaker system on the varsity diamond which is located adjacent to the pool and community area. The large bubbles illustrated sound levels in decibels emanating from the bullhoms mounted on two poles. They are non -directional. They were originally installed with the intent of covering a broad area and they do that very well. The most intense area is 80 decibels and extends over the west property line to 70 decibels. Seventy decibels would be characterized as a passing vehicle at 65 miles per hour or a lawnmower at ten feet. By locating the primary varsity diamond to the northeast, they were attempting to move it away from the adjacent property line. The much improved sound system would be directed toward the bleacher seating behind home plate. The sound would be more funneled. At the property lines it would be about 50 decibels which would be considered evening in a suburb. The sound system would only be located on the varsity field. Mr. Potasnik asked about the greenspace that would be used during construction. Would it be used for staging equipment during construction? He also wanted to know about the upgrading and expansion of the existing playground. Mr. Payne indicated the playground areas on the south, the north, and adjacent to the building on the south side which is the primary and kindergarten areas will all be upgraded. They have designed the play -ground facilities at most of the Carmel elementary schools so they are familiar with the scope and types of equipment. The normal course of action is to work with staff on -site to develop a plan for age appropriate equipment at each of the locations. That would part of the overall renovation. He thought the greenspace areas being discussed were the two existing fields that were not fenced on the outfield. areas and are immediately west of the school. In the revised renovation plan, they would still maintain no fencing on the southeast field. That would be available the same as the current field, only reversed so that the backstop is toward the inward side. In a recent School Board meeting, the School Board chose not to install the fence on the southwest field. That would enable the use of the southwest field, with supervision, for school -age children during the day. During construction, they would erect a substantial construction barricade fence north to south that would barricade the entire western portion of the property during the grading operation. They expect most of the grading operations to be completed this Fall in time for seed and/or sod to be installed. When the seed is established in the northern area, it could be used potentially by Fall 2009 or no later than Spring 2010. Mrs. Torres felt the greenspace was a great loss for the elementary school and the Carmel Dad's Club does need improved facilities. Was there a way to accomplish both? Could the varsity field be moved to the western field, eliminating that fence? Page 6 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Mr. Payne stated that was the optimum field orientation for normal softball or baseball activities, in a non -illuminated situation. It also places the primary field as far away from the neighboring properties as possible. The two southern fields will be available for access by school children. Mrs. Torres stated the children have such a limited time for recess. By the time they got out to the field, they would have to turn around and come back in for school. Keeping it closer to the school would be the best for both parties. Was there any commitment for the grading to be completed before school begins? Mr. Payne stated there had been considerable discussion with the Administration and Staff on -site. Most of the activities during recess go to the north rather than to the south area. The grading will probably not be completed before school begins. The project has been delayed working with the School Board and the neighbors and then going through the BZA process. It is in their best interest to have it completed as soon as possible to have seed established hopefully by the end of September. Mrs. Torres felt the traffic and parking were a problem. Currently at Towne Meadow, even with the re - striping, they are doubled parked down the middle as well as all around. Will the schedule be staggered? Mr. Payne stated there would be no expansion of the parking. Originally it was going to be expanded with dual use with some of the playground. It was felt in conversation with local residents and parents that would not be advantageous and was eliminated from the plan. Another possibility would be dual striping on the bus lot on the south. He indicated the service drive that is accessed from the north parking lot and goes around the playgrounds and back to the service building. It is unsafe and will be eliminated from the plans. In the new plan, the only drive would be purely for emergency purposes. Otherwise it would be used only for pedestrian access. There will no longer be an access drive on the north portion of the site. Ms. O'Hara stated the School District is committed to working with the City to insure there is appropriate traffic flow during and after completion of the construction. Mrs. Torres asked if the activity level would increase with the improvements. Ms. O'Hara stated it was the intention that the activity levels remain the same. It is not the goal to expand, but to provide improvements to better utilize the area for the students. Mr. Dierckman asked if the greenspace in the fields north of the facility would remain accessible during the school day. Mr. Payne confirmed they would be accessible. They will be re -grading the area. They believe it will be more usable after completion of the project. The swale will be made shallower with a more even slope. The detention area in front of Prairie Trace is used for most of the school day activities. The gate to the Avian Glen subdivision pool area will be re -installed in approximately the same location. Mr. Broach agreed the re -configuration will help with light and sound, but the remonstrators stated this was not about light and sound. They suggested an alternative plan to upgrade the facilities where they are right now. Page 7 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Mr. Payne stated there were multiple groups and different interests with regards to these fields. They are convinced if they attempt to renovate the two existing fields, they would not be able to improve the conditions for the residents immediately adjacent to the fields. Ms. O'Hara confirmed the School Board had reviewed the various options. This is not a private developer so it has gone through due diligence. Mr. Broach understood there was no additional field. There was just the one additional field closest to the school that would be fenced. Is that the one that is best for sight lines and the sun angles? What would be the implications if the field was not fenced? Mr. Payne confirmed that was the optimal orientation to the northeast. If it is not fenced, it cannot be used for high school competitive games. Mr. Hawkins had walked the site and had questions about the drainage. Currently there is dirt and debris on the sidewalk leading out from the school to the grandstand due to drainage issues. Can a drainage plan be created after the construction on the fields has begun? Mr. Payne stated a detailed drainage plan and study had been submitted to the Department of Engineering that is currently under review. He felt it was a very effective design and they were working through the details at this point. Mr. Hawkins noticed this facility has slowly and continuously expanded. He had reservations about any other uses or frequency of uses being approved by the Carmel Clay Board of Trustees. He wanted to delete that statement. He felt it gave them the latitude to expand the scope of this project, the times, etc. He would rather see the commitment made that the times outlined remain the same and are consistent with current use and current users. Roger McMichael, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs for Carmel Schools. The School Board does not have plans to expand the use of the facility. The facility itself could not be expanded without BZA approval. In the unknown future, if schedules change because of tournaments the School Board would want to be able to respond to the changes and have some latitude. Only the School Board would be able to make any changes in the uses because the Dad's Club would be happy to use the facility more than they are currently using it. There have been numerous meetings with the School Board, the parents and the community the last three months. This School Board does not want to tie the hands of any future School Boards. From the current schedule of use there is not much more time available. The intensity could increase with tournaments in the place of practice times. Mr. Dierckman stated that was not acceptable. The BZA Board was responsible to the entire community and regulating the property for the entire community. The School District's level of interest relative to the whole community is slightly different from the level of interest of the BZA Board. The School District can commit to this schedule to the BZA and then come to the BZA to request any changes to the schedule. Ms. O'Hara stated the Petitioner will commit to the schedule. Also any changes made to the facility would need BZA approval. Page 8 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Mr. Hawkins asked about the gate with a lock to the Avian Glen subdivision. Who controls that lock if people are parking over there and getting to these fields? Kevin Kultgen, President Avian Glen Homeowners Association. The lock has been vandalized again. They have a regular budget item in the neighborhood dues for replacing the lock. It is continually vandalized. They try to keep non -neighborhood cars out of the parking lot so that residents can use the pool and tennis courts. It has become a very expensive item. It has been considered to block it permanently, but they have a number of residents who walk their children to Cherry Tree. Mr. Hawkins asked if the School Board would consider maintaining the gate. Mr. Kultgen stated the Avian Glen HOA did not want that to happen. Mr. McMichael did point out that with the current configuration of the fields and bleachers it was tempting to park in the Avian Glen lot. Under the new configuration that will change. Any access to the complex will be all the way around to the east entrance. That should discourage parking in that lot. Mrs. Torres was still concerned with the greenspace and was having a hard time pushing this through with the existing greenspace. Depending on time of day of the game, they will be facing the sun one way or the other. Is there some sort of IHSAA regulation that would prevent the western field from becoming the varsity field? Does it have to be oriented in a certain direction? Mr. McMichael did not know. That is the recognized proper orientation. Duane Cretin, 379 Mary Ellen Court. The IHSAA website states how they suggest and want the field situated. He does not work for them, so he did not know about their rules and regulations. Mr. Broach asked Mr. McMichael about the greenspace situation. Mr. McMichael acknowledged the amount of greenspace would be reduced with the fencing of one field. The School Board did take that into consideration. The last several schools have about an acre of property for greenspace, including the two new schools on Shelburne Road. Cherry Tree has more than that. Even though no one cares what someone else has, there continues to be adequate space for the elementary program. Each outfield is about an acre or a little more. There is area south of the south parking lot that is contiguous with the south outfield that is about seven tenths of an acre. The retention area is west of the north playground. That area is used by the children except on wet spring days. It is certainly not ideal, but it is used for greenspace. There is some additional greenspace to the east of that playground which has the current access road. There is some additional greenspace across from that. However, the greenspace next to the school has trees and is not open play area. Mr. Dierckman pointed out that the south area is large enough for a soccer field. Mr. Broach asked if there were any plans for additional landscape plans and buffering. Mr. McMichael stated there would be some fill-in around the perimeter. The landscaping has been there since the late 1980's, so it is pretty substantial. They have offered to work the neighbors for specific locations for trees. Page 9 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08050036 SUA, Cherry Tree Softball Complex with the Commitment to adhere to the Cherry Tree Softball Use of Complex Schedule dated "final 5-13- 08". The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Molitor was asked to coordinate with Ms. O'Hara to put the Use Schedule into format to be recorded. I. Old Business Mr. Broach recused himself. 141. Stout Shoes Buildings The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08030010 V Section 20G.05.04 (A) (3) Retail uses in excess of 50% Docket No. 08030011 V Section 20G.05.04 (B) (2) (a) Height under 28'/0ne occupiable floor Docket No. 08030012 V Section 20G.05.04 (B) (2) Setback of less than 10'. Docket No. 08050001 V Section 20G.04.01(A) Site plan to match adopted plan Docket No. 08050035 V Section 20G.05.04.0 (1) Frontage less than 70' along ROW The site is located at 13100-13155 Old Meridian Street and is zoned Old Meridian/Mixed Use within the Old Meridian District. Filed by Michael C. Cook of Wooden & McLaughlin LLP for Old Meridian & Main Street Properties, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: Mike Cook, attorney, Wooden & McLaughlin. He asked for a waiver for the Public Notice for their new Docket No. 08050035 V. At last month's meeting they discussed four variances. In discussion with Staff, they recognized there was a fifth variance needed with respect to the amount of the frontage occupied by the building. The Ordinance requires 70 feet and the building will be a little over 55 feet. They amended their application. They did give nineteen days notice which complies with State Statute. They had given public notice for the other four variances for the May 19 meeting. One person who attended the May 19`s meeting was in support of the project. No remonstrators attended the meeting nor has he had contact from anyone in opposition to the project. Mr. Dierckman moved to waive the 25-day public notice. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0. Mr. Cook displayed site elevations. These variances are needed based upon the configuration of the parcel and the additional requirements of the Old Meridian District. The parcel is currently occupied by the Stout Shoes Store and Tom Mullins Veterinary Clinic. The site will be redeveloped with two buildings. The north building will be 8240 square feet; 100 feet long by 80 feet deep on each end and 86 feet deep in the middle. It would be occupiable as a one-story building. It will have a fagade that will appear to be a two-story building which would be consistent with the Old Meridian District. That building is the primary reason for most of the variance applications. The middle portion of the building is approximately 40 feet wide by 86 feet deep. The overall height on each end is 25 feet 4 inches and 30 feet 8 inches in the middle. Therefore, it does not meet the minimum height requirement of 28 feet on the ends. It will parrot the look of a two-story building, but it does not have two occupiable floors. Also more than 50 percent of the building is proposed for retail uses. The Ordinance requires no more than 50 percent of a building have retail uses. It is a building that would have a setback from the existing right-of-way on Old Meridian Street of ten feet. The Ordinance requires a ten -foot minimum setback from the proposed right-of-way in the Thoroughfare Plan which would require a twenty -foot setback. The purposes of the variances are to allow the development of this site in the most efficient way and recognizing the parking requirements for each building. The inspiration for the design of this Page 10 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 building is the old Masala building on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue and just east of the existing Stout Shoes Store in downtown Indianapolis. The second/south proposed building will contain a total of 20,640 square feet; 129 feet long by 80 feet wide and 30 feet in height. It meets all the Ordinance requirements except for the setback. It does have two occupiable floors and will be a mixed - use building. Through discussions with Staff, that building has been increased in length and overall size. It has been changed in terms of its architecture by the addition of windows and brick. They were before Special Studies on June 3, 2008 on a preliminary basis as requested at the May 19d' BZA meeting. He felt the reception of the project was positive by the Special Studies Committee. They have eliminated the dryvit on the second floor on the south end of the building, making the south end of the second floor all brick. Both of the buildings will be approximately 80 percent brick. The inspiration for this building is the Stout Shoes Store on Massachusetts Avenue in downtown Indianapolis. These two buildings are phase one on this site plan. They were asked at the May 19a' meeting to provide a site plan for phase two of this project which is the development of the corner of this parcel at Main Street and Old Meridian Street. This will be a three-story multi -use building made out of materials similar to and compliment the other two proposed buildings. This building cannot be constructed until the new facilities for the veterinary clinic are completed. The Petitioner has usages for phase one at this time therefore, those two buildings will be constructed first. The Stout Shoes Store and New Balance Store will occupy the south building in phase one. A rendering of the buildings was shown. The practical difficulties with the development of this parcel are the parking requirements. Even though they meet the parking requirements in the Ordinance, they cannot meet the parking requirements for the intense retail development of this parcel. That is one of the reasons they do not have two occupiable floors on the north building. If they had two occupiable floors on the north building, they would need to change the building proposed on the corner. Brad Stout, the developer, and Dik Hoover, the engineer, were also present to answer any questions. According to the Old Meridian District, a landmark building is proposed at the comer of this parcel. That building was proposed before this site was rezoned for mixed use. That would require more real estate than this parcel. It would also require the relocation of the facilities next to this parcel. Therefore, a variance is needed for the site plan not matching the adopted plan. They felt they were developing the parcel to be consistent with the Old Meridian District, recognizing the limitations of the parcel. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. This request has been modified extensively since its original filing. The Department has worked closely with the Petitioner to bring about some changes to the building elevations and the building heights. The docket has also been before the Special Studies Committee and will return to them for the DP/ADLS approval. The variances for retail uses in excess of 50 percent and height/one occupiable floor are just for the north building. The overall intensity of the variances has been mitigated by the modification of the south building. The Department of Engineering has reviewed the setback request and had no concerns. Old Meridian Street has been improved extensively and it is unlikely to be improved beyond what has been done. The site plan variance does stem from the Old Meridian District site plan. The Department is still seeking a landmark style development, but not necessarily a landmark building. The Department believed in working with the Petitioner they have gotten to that point with the three buildings that will eventually fill in the space. With regards to the frontage, they are very close to meeting the required 70 feet. With the additional building and the proposed landscaping, the overall visual impact will be there. The Department recommended positive consideration of all the variances. Page 11 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Mr. Dierckman asked the Petitioner to commit to eliminating the veterinary clinic after they have moved to their new facility. Mr. Stout confirmed they would remove the building within six months of being vacated. Mrs. Torres reiterated that she is a member of the Special Studies Committee and the plans were very positively received. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 08030010 V through 08030012 V, 08050001 V, and 08050035 V, Stout Shoes Buildings with the Commitment to remove the vet clinic within six months of vacation of the building by the current user. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0. Mr. Dierckman left the meeting at this time. Mr. Broach rejoined the Board. H. Public Hearing - continued: 1h. St. Vincent Carmel Hospital — Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08050004 V Section 25.07.02-05 (b) Number of signs The site is located at 13500 N. Meridian St. It is zoned B-6, Light commercial and office uses adjacent to limited access highways. Filed by Dan Adler of BSA LifeStructures for St. Vincent Carmel Hospital. Present for the Petitioner: Dan Adler, architectural firm BSA LifeStructures. This variance is for a new/additional ground sign for the St. Vincent Carmel Hospital. They believe with the construction of the new roundabout this new sign will help people find the hospital. The current signs on the property do not provide adequate signage and directional way -finding to the hospital. There are a couple of existing directional signs along Old Meridian Street. The main concern is adequate way -finding from Guilford Road with the existing signs. The new sign will provide clear visibility from Guilford Road. A rendering of the view from Guilford Road was shared showing sign location and visibility. A view from southbound Old Meridian Street was also shown. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared The Public Hearing was closed. Miss Boone gave the Department Report. This new sign will be on the southwest comer of the new roundabout at Old Meridian and Guilford into the entrance of the hospital. It will be about 27 square feet in size for the sign area. The actual sign will be 5 feet tall by 16 feet wide. They are permitted 75 square feet. There will be interior illumination. It will be made from routed aluminum to match the existing signs on the site. There are two additional directional signs for the hospital; one at the entrance to the hospital at the new roundabout and one at the south entrance on Old Meridian. The Department felt the sign would enhance the site. It is done in good taste and it does fit within the Ordinance regulations. There are a number of signs at the hospital, but generally the Department was in support of the sign. Mr. Potasnik had visited the site. As he approached the roundabout from Guilford, there is one entrance with a sign. A little further south is another sign at the south entrance into the property. The Page 12 of 22 r. Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 north fagade has the St. Vincent logo which he could see from Guilford. There was a sign in red directing to the emergency room along with numerous other signs. Will all those signs stay? He was having a hard time figuring out where it would be hard for people to locate St. Vincent's. Mr. Adler stated the new sign would be in addition to the existing signs. The existing signs are facing north toward US 31 rather than Guilford Road to the south. He believed the signs were visible when people were in the roundabout. But further on Guilford the signs are not as visible. Mr. Hawkins asked if there would be landscaping and other decorative motifs in the roundabout. If so, this sign would serve no purpose. Miss Boone did not know about the future landscaping for this new roundabout, but all the other roundabouts have some type of stone or landscaping design in the middle. Mr. Adler felt the main benefit of the sign was for people approaching on Guilford before they reached the roundabout. They have tried to raise the sign above the height of the mound in the center of the roundabout. A large stone structure may obscure the sign. Mr. Broach asked if there was a commitment to landscape the new sign as portrayed in the drawing. Mr. Adler confirmed this sign would be landscaped like the other signs. Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 08050004 V, St. Vincent Carmel Hospital-signage, with the Commitment to landscape the sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach and APPROVED 3-1, with Mr. Potasnik casting the negative vote. 2h. Printing Plus Office The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 08050006 UV ARpendix A: Use Table Office uses in residential district The site is located at 505 East 116 Street and is zoned RI/Residential Filed by Rex Neal of Printing Plus, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Rex Neal, Sheridan, IN, owner of Printing Plus. He would like to have his small office in this house that would be non -owner occupied. He has been in business 25 years. It is a very small company. He is the only full-time employee with 3 or 4 part-time employees. They print on small credit card sized plastic. Their customers do not come to the office. With the garage, there will not be a need for any additional parking. He was not requesting any signs or lights. He will keep the house residential -looking. Since the cards are small, the delivery of five to ten thousand cards is made by UPS. He felt a family would be a lot more traffic than his small business. The part-time employees come in around 10:00 AM and leave in time to meet their children's school bus. It is zoned residential. However, I I6°i Street is becoming less and less conducive to people wanting to live there. This property has been shown thirty to forty times, but no one wants to buy it for a residence because of the increasing traffic and noise. Some houses have been for sale for two to three years. The property values are going down because it is becoming less desirable to live there. The could become rental properties which are not maintained as well. The Westfield Boulevard and 96 Street area is becoming rental properties and they are not maintained as well with lots of people living in one home. He will keep this house residential -looking. He felt this went along with the Comprehensive Plan: "Commercial development within residential communities generally should occur only when the commercial use is not of the community original serving nature and when the intensity and scale is Page 13 of 22 1. Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 compatible with surrounding residential uses." He felt that was what he was proposing. It would look like a residence and customers would not be coming and going. He will work there six days a week and usually brings his lunch. From time to time due to inclement weather, he does spend the night at the facility. He felt he was a good residential neighbor. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Favorable: Mike Godfrey, 2050 E 96`s Street. He also owns a property on I I6`s Street and at some point would also like to apply for a Use Variance. He felt I I6`s Street was inappropriate for residential use at this point. The immediate area has declined terribly. He has put a lot of money into his property to keep it maintained. He thought it was an appropriate use to allow a small business at this location. Candy & Ron Laswell, 505 E. I I6a' Street, current owners of the property. They distributed a packet of information and pictures. They purchased the home in 1974. It has been on the market for one year. They have had several showings. There have been multiple interests except for location and that is the most important thing in real estate. Unfortunately they happen to be on one of the busiest streets in Cannel. When they moved there it was a two-lane road with a cornfield across the street that went for a mile in each direction. There were no traffic lights north of 86`" Street; they were in the country. They have watched Carmel grow and progress. That can be a double-edged sword. In their case, traffic has become almost impossible. She displayed a traffic count from November 2005. According to David Littlejohn, Alternative Traffic Coordinator, a more recent traffic count is in the works, but will not be available for about six months. In November 2005 they were averaging 15,000 cars per day in front of their home. That was before I I6 h Street was four lanes all the way from Zionsville to Geist. Meridian/US 31 has become increasingly difficult to navigate because of transportation. The noise during the day and especially in the evening when they are sitting out on their back porch is extremely noticeable. In the Sunday, June 22, 2008 Indianapolis Star there was an article on the front page saying US 31 now carries 100,000 cars per day between Indianapolis and South Bend. They were probably not all at 116a' Street, but she felt 50,000 were on a daily basis. Over the course of the last year they have had interest in their home. The comments have all been good, except no one wants to live on a busy street and nobody wants the noise. It is no longer residential because nobody wants to raise their children there or have their pets running near the street. She shared the pictures of their home showing traffic and the "For Sale" sign of a home that has been vacant for seven years. That home is gutted on the inside and has boarded up windows. The City has cut the grass on several occasions after receiving complaints. The homes are starting to deteriorate because they are vacant or going to rentals. There is a six -story building and an eight -story building in the Meridian Technology Center. The 79 homeowners in their homeowners association tried to fight the Meridian Technology Center construction. They did not have enough money or lawyers. Instead of the cornfield across the street, they now have lakefront property with a four -lane road between them and the lake. There is another two-story office building that was built in the past two years. Across from their driveway is the lake as well as a three-story office building. Also they can see the Duke Realty leasing sign and an assisted living facility with all- night lighting. Next is another office building and heavy traffic further east from their property. At College Avenue and Guilford Road along 110 Street are retail shops, three restaurants, a dry cleaner, a hair and nail salon, a clothing shop, a cooking school and a dentist. They are getting ready to develop additional retail shopping just to the west of the last building. The horse property at the corner of College and 116`s Street is being touted as possible commercial. She felt if a developer wants it bad enough, he will pay the $2 million price tag. They lived there a long time and updated and maintained their home which they love. Last year they felt it was too much traffic and noise. They moved before Page 14 of 22 J. Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 they put their home on the market because they wanted to go to a place in the country again. They never thought it would take this long to get their house sold, especially in the condition they had maintained. There are 14 homes in a 79-home subdivision that face 116s' Street; there are three rentals, one vacancy and one on the market for over a year. The house east of theirs which had just sold had been on the market for two years. Mr. Godfrey's house had been on the market about a year when he bought it. If this request is denied, they will need to market their house as a rental. They do not want to be landlords, but they cannot afford to let the property sit vacant. It is not good for the neighborhood and it is not good for the house. The rental fee would be good income. They are still paying the taxes and utilities, and maintaining the property. They had not had any opposition expressed from the neighbors they had notified. Mrs. Parish, a backyard neighbor, indicated she had no objection to the variance. Mr. Neal had made an effort to meet all the neighbors and let them know his plans. He will not need any signage or structural changes, so they were hoping for a favorable vote. Cindy Sylvester, ReMax at the Crossing. She verified the property had been listed since June 18, 2007. They have had 35 showings with great comments about the property. It has been updated, but people do not like the location or the road noise. People are concerned about raising children there or letting their pets out into the yard because of the traffic. Unfavorable: Vicky Newlin, 11418 Central Drive West, since 1968. She lives behind the house that has been empty for seven years. She is speaking to save her house and others inside the subdivision. Once a business starts, she felt it would just take over the whole neighborhood. The house at 501 1160' Street is advertised as a double and she did not think it was zoned for that. There has been a pressboard truck parked in front of it. She does not want to lose her house to all of this, unless they were going to buy out the whole neighborhood. She is treasurer for the homeowners association and felt she spoke for a lot of people that are inside the neighborhood. Bill Howell, 11501 Ruckle Street, the street behind the property, since 1965. There had been a lot of changes. He thought the City would have taken them in by 1975 instead of three years ago. They waited until the residents had sewer and water and everything they needed. Now they have higher taxes and might get a policeman quicker than the County Sheriff. He felt it was detrimental to the neighborhood to zone the property for business. This business might not be too bad, but if one comes there will be more all up and down the street. They are there eight or nine hours, but what happens to all the other hours when they are not there. A lot of things can go wrong. He did not feel it would be advantageous to anyone in the neighborhood to have a business at this location. He recommended they keep the neighborhood residential as it was designed. There are a lot of people that are very happy on I I6`s Street with no problems. The houses do not turn very often. As Mrs. Laswell pointed out, there is office space down the street. Darrol McArthy, 11402 Ruckle Street, since 1966. He is a few doors closer to Meridian than the Laswell property and he scarcely hears the traffic. If you are outside and concentrate on it, you can hear it, but it is not a bother. This is a nice area to live in. There is a lot of business space available on Pennsylvania in low-rise office buildings. He has never seen all the office space occupied. Plus there is new development between College and Guilford with space available. It was his opinion the area should stay residential. He thought this would have a negative impact on the overall Northern Heights homes. During this last year, there has been a housing sales slump and that could be the problem on getting a buyer. There are lots of workers in the area that need affordable housing like the Northern Heights homes. The houses on 11 bei Street are not suitable for families with young children. But there Page 15 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23,2008 are many other people that need affordable housing. Keeping it residential would be a better image for this area that is one of the entrances into Carmel, rather than piecemeal businesses intermingled. Rebuttal: Mr. Neal is not requesting signs and the house will remain looking residential. He felt it would not look as well if it became a rental. The office buildings available are $2000 to $4500 per month. He is the only full-time employee and cannot afford that much rent. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Hohnes gave the Department Report. There have been numerous variance requests for properties along 116`h Street. The other section of 1160' Street is all residential and a two-lane street at thatyoint. In this instance, there are commercial office uses to the north, east and west. This section of 116 Street is one of the most heavily traveled streets in Carmel. For all intents and purposes, it is a four -lane major commercial thoroughfare. Typically the Department does not support requests for businesses based in houses because they can be disruptive to the neighborhood with location and intensity of use. There will be no signage and parking will not be expanded, so it will still be a house with a few part-time employees. The Department felt this use could be a good transition of uses between the office parks to the north, east and west and the residential uses to the south. The Department weighs each such request on its own merits. They recognize there will probably be similar requests along this stretch of 116 Street. Commercial uses can co -exist with residential uses if the commercial uses are similar in intensity to what would be permitted by a home -based business and it continues to function as a house. The Department recommended positive consideration of the request. Mr. Hawkins stated the application states it is not owner or renter occupied and it has been vacant. He wanted to know if Mr. Neal was currently using the house. He also asked if the driveway connected to the adjacent property. Would he commit to using the garage for parking? Mr. Neal stated he would be moving his business into the house. There are concrete barriers between the two driveways. They would not be encroaching and the neighbor has no problem with the business occupying the house. There is a two -car garage, so there would probably be only one car setting in the driveway. Mrs. Torres wanted to reiterate this is a Use Variance, not a change in the zoning. It will still remain R-1 Residential zoning. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 08050006 UV, Printing Plus Office with the Commitment to use the garage for employee parking, so there will be no stacking. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0. 3-13h. KFC/Taco Bell The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals Docket No. 08050007 V Section 27.08 Reduction in Parking Docket No. 08050008 V Section 23 C.11 G Drive -Through Stacking Spaces Docket No. 08050009 V Section 23 C.10.02 Foundation planting reduction Docket No. 08050010 V Section 23 C.08.03 (b) Bufferyard reduction Docket No. 08050011 V Section 23 C.10.03 Parking lot planting strip reduction Docket No. 08050012 V Section 25.07.02-08(a) Monument sign in addition to wall signs Docket No. 08050013 V Section 25.07.02-08(b) Additional wall signs Page 16 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Docket No. 08050014 V Section 25.07.02-08(e) Wall signs facing private ROW Docket No. 08050015 V Section 25.07.02-08 © Wall sign size Docket No. 08050016 V Section 25.07.02-08 Menu board size Docket No. 08050017 V Section 25.07.02-08 Number of menu boards The site is located at 10575 North Michigan Road and is zoned B3/Commercial, within the Michigan Road/US 421 Overlay. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for KFC US Properties, Inc. Present for the Petitioner: Charlie Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present were Joe Boyle, the engineer, and Sandy Moore Auckerman, the regional architect. This project will also be presented to the Plan Commission on July 15 for DP/ADLS review. This is a 1.2 acre site currently occupied by a vacant Ritter's Frozen Custard stand. The proposed plan superimposed on an aerial photograph was displayed. The site is located on the east side of Michigan Road, south of 106`s Street. The site has frontage on three streets; Michigan Road to the west, a private street to the south and a private street to the east. The variances had been fully detailed in the informational packet and further analyzed in the Department Report. He briefly overviewed the variances beginning with the signs. A site plan was shown with the perimeter roads. Since two of the streets are private streets they are permitted only two signs under the Sign Ordinance; either a ground sign or a wall sign and one menu board. They were requesting a wall sign on the south elevation, a wall sign on the west elevation, a monument sign and two menu boards. They believed their requests were consist with existing signage in the area. An elevation was shown with the two proposed wall signs. Each sign area within the rectangle enclosing the sign would be 64 square feet. After conferring with the Department, they agreed to reduce the area of each wall sign to 40 square feet. A rendering was shown with the two 40 square feet signage areas. They also agreed to revise the building to eliminate almost all of the EFIS. The exterior building materials will be almost exclusively brick. A rendering of the monument sign was shown. Per the Department recommendations, they had added the sandstone cap and the brick frame to match the building. The preview board and menu board will be located in the drive-thru area and will be shielded from the Michigan Road Corridor by the building. An illustration of the preview board was shown. This board allows customers to preview the menu before the menu ordering board. The drive-thru services are made more efficient by reducing time in line. After conferring with the Department, they agreed to reduce the height of the preview board to six feet and to reduce the area of the preview board to 16 square feet. With the reductions, the menu board will be within the perimeters of allowed size and area. The variance is for this additional menu board. An illustration of the menu board was also shown. This facility will sell both Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell products. It was a challenge to get sufficient information on the boards. They agreed to eliminate the advertising strip along the top of the board, thereby reducing the height of the menu board. They also agreed to reduce the overall size of the menu board from 47 square feet to 32 square feet. A rendering was shown of the revised board which will be 6 feet tall with an area of 32 square feet, excluding the base. The variances for the landscaping pertain to the width of foundation plantings and the width of perimeter buffers. He felt they were sufficiently addressed in the packets and the Department Report. It was his understanding that Scott Brewer, the Urban Forester, had reviewed and approved the landscape plan as submitted. They are excited about this redevelopment. It will allow several improvements to existing conditions, including reduced impervious surface, more landscaping, a more attractive building and bicycle parking. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Page 17 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report for the landscape reduction and setback and parking variance requests. The Petitioner was asking for a reduction from the 59 required parking spaces to 36 spaces and from 10 required stacking spaces to 8 spaces. There are other fast-food restaurants in the corridor that have received similar variances in the recent past. Given that a large proportion of business for a fast-food restaurant is the drive-thru, as well as the large amount of adjacent parking, the Department does not have any concerns with the proposed reductions. With regards to the landscape reductions, the Petitioner has been working with the Urban Forester. The site will actually have more available greenspace and pervious space than is currently available on the site. Currently the majority of the site is paved and the Petitioner is limited as to how much landscaping they can create on the site. The overall amount of landscaping will not be significantly reduced. While the amount of landscaping in specific areas in the bufferyard would be reduced, the plantings would be located elsewhere on the site, particularly within the drive-thru island. The Urban Forester has reviewed all of the submitted landscape plans and has not expressed any major concerns with the requests. Miss Boone gave the Department Report for the signage. The Department Report incorrectly stated "if all the streets were private, the signs would be allowed." It should have read "if all the streets were public, the signs would be allowed." The two private streets on the east and south are heavily trafficked. Along this corridor, they have given other businesses variances for signs facing these streets. The two wall signs have each been reduced to 40 square feet, which is permitted in the Sign Ordinance. This size will look better architecturally in the sign band area above the doors. The variances are needed for signs not facing the right-of-way and the number of signs. The Department was happy the Petitioner had decided to reduce the size of the preview board to 16 square feet. This fits within the Sign Ordinance, but will need a variance because of the number of proposed menu boards. The large menu board will be 32 square feet, which would be 16 square feet for each of the two menus/restaurants. The reduced height of 6 feet makes the sign more in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. The Department was in support of all the sign variances with the proposed reductions in size. They would no longer need Docket No. 08050015 V wall sign size, because the 40 square feet for each wall sign is now in compliance with the Ordinance. Mrs. Torres wanted clarification on the wall signs. She thought a variance was needed if only logos with no words were used in the signage. Miss Boone stated they can have 100 percent logo signage in a center that is not integrated. If it was in a center with multiple tenants, then the logo could only be 25 percent. Because there are not seven or more tenants, this does not qualify as a multi -tenant building. Mr. Potasnik asked about the menu board size. The size was reduced because they eliminated the advertising that appeared across the top of the sign. The menu board is basically split in half with KFC on half and Taco Bell on the other half. How much does it exceed the Sign Ordinance? Did the Department ask for the base for the menu board? Miss Boone stated it exceeds the Ordinance by 16 square feet. The base is not included. This is the actual sign area. The Department typically asks for the base to match the building. They have reduced it to an acceptable size which is 6 feet in height including the base. Mr. Frankenberger stated with two restaurant menus, they have more products to show on the menu board. The preview board helps with the menu selections. The menu board is the correct height, but a Page 18 of 22 00 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 larger sign was needed to list the food products. Neither of these menu boards will be visible from Michigan Road. Mr. Potasnik wanted to make sure that advertising would not be fastened to the sides of the sign. Mr. Frankenberger confirmed nothing would be fastened to the sign. Mrs. Tones asked why the variances for reductions in bufferyards were needed, if the greenspace was being increased. Was the reduction between Michigan Road and the parking lot? Mr. Frankenberger believed the greenspace was being made up in the island at the drive-thru Joseph Boyle with GPD Associates, Akron OH, engineer for the project. The reason they will have more impervious area on this site is the existing Ritter's does not have a bufferyard along the east property. Also, it does not have a bufferyard along the north property. That is a small area on the north side of the building and they will be providing some landscaping there. They will be able to gain some more landscaping at the southwest comer of the property. There will be a landscaping island to the east of the building. All those small increases do increase the impervious area. The Ritter's had a lot of pavement around the property and did not comply with the greenspace requirements. The areas were indicated on a site plan. Even with the variances, this project will have more landscaping. There is now some landscaping in areas that had been empty. That might explain the contradictions. Mrs. Barton -Holmes stated this Ritter's and the Wendy's to the north of this location pre -date the Overlay requirements. Mr. Frankenberger felt the Department and the Urban Forester were comfortable with the landscape plan that was submitted. They have increased the impervious surface over the existing conditions. Mrs. Tones asked them to indicate the point of ingress. Mr. Boyle showed the ingress along the private access drive and the progression through the site. There are actually three entrances to the facility. The opening, with pavement striping, in the drive-thm area is for anyone who needs to get out of the drive -that lane. Mr. Hawkins was concerned traffic from the private drive would try to go through the opening and into the drive-thru. He was worried they would cause a stacking problem trying to come into the restaurant. Mr. Boyle stated they could put a small mountable curb there. If someone needed to get out, they could. But it would not be open and obvious for someone to come in that way. Mrs. Barton -Holmes stated if they tried to cut into the drive-thru at that point, they would be past the menu ordering board. It was possible, but unlikely. The Department would prefer to see the ability to get out of the drive-thru lane. Mr. Broach moved to approve Docket Nos. 08050007 V through 08050014 V and 08050016 V through 08050017 V, KFC/Taco Bell as amended by the Petitioner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. Page 19 of 22 i• Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 14h. Hornbean Ct Addition The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08050018 V Section 5.04.03.D (1) Reduction of rear yard setback The site is located at 5847 Hombean Court and is zoned Sl/Single•Family Residential. Filed by Brent Bennett of A -I Expeditors for Dennis Shock, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Brent Bennett, project manager. The owners want to remove the current deck and replace it with a sunroom and a side deck, taking up the back yard. There is a 20-foot setback. The property line dives in drastically and they only have 28 feet at one area. The existing deck would not be compliant with the City Ordinance. The existing deck is 11.5 feet and the sunroom will be 12 feet. They are asking for an allowance of the setback to 16 feet, giving them a relief of 4 feet. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. From the aerial photograph, she indicated the rear yard that is shallower than several of the adjoining parcels which have similar improvements. After construction of the sunroom and legally establishing the deck structure, the rear yard encroachment would only be four feet. There are no easements or floodplain issues. The Department does not feel that this would negatively impact the surrounding area in keeping with similar improvements. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 08050018 V, Hornbean Court Addition. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Tones and APPROVED 4-0. 15-17h. Carmel Hope Fellowship The applicant seeks the following development standards variance and special use amendment approvals: Docket No. 08050030 Section 26.02.08 Reduced setback, front yard Docket No. 08050031 Section 7.04.03 Reduced setback, sidelfront yard Docket No. 08050032 Appendix A, Use Table Amendment of approved special use The site is located at 14535 Carey Road and is zoned RI/Residential. Filed by Don Hawley of Carmel Hope Fellowship of Seventh-Day Adventists. Present for the Petitioner: Don Hawley, appointed to represent Carmel Hope Fellowship with authority granted by the Indiana Association of Seventh-Day Adventists, the legal property holder. They were granted Special Use and Variances on May 24, 2004. This amendment to their Special Use is to allow them to change the footprint of their proposed new building and to build a 15 by 26 feet addition to the east end of the existing chapel. A site plan was shown. This expansion would allow them to accommodate an increasing number of worshippers while they complete the final design and building of their sanctuary and classroom building. The new building will be substantially like the one previously approved. The footprint of the expansion was shown. It would be finished with matching windows. They have been informed by the Alternative Transportation Coordinator that they will need to install ten -foot asphalt paths in lieu of the six-foot paths that were previously approved, as well as bicycle parking to meet the City Ordinances. They will also need to connect all internal sidewalks to the perimeter paths and install ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crossings. Scott Brewer, the Urban Forester, will need new landscape plans to show corrections to any plantings affected by the proposed new footprint. They have agreed to communicate with Weihe Engineers to include all required changes to the site plans. They have completed Phase 1 and have been using the remodeled Page 20 of 22 ♦e Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23,2008 building since 2005. Phase 2 was the completion of the parking lot. That has been built with concrete, as opposed to asphalt, to enhance the overall appearance of the property. In addition, they request the previously approved 15-foot setback for the parking area be extended to the north property line. This will allow them adequate room in the new building for the classroom areas for the children, as well as the multi -purpose room. The setback line was indicated on the site plan. They were previously given a variance for a five-foot setback due to the County requirements changing. They were asking for that to be extended around the comer to where the 35-foot setback ends. They were originally requested to give the appearance of an entrance at this location even though their main entrance is on the south end of the building. Due to the small size of the property, it would be a hardship for the congregation to construct the needed building without the approval of these requests. These variances will make it possible to have the desired appearance for this neighborhood and this very visible comer. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton -Holmes gave the Department Report. This is a revision and slight expansion of what was approved in 2004. The original new construction was proposed to be 10,800 square feet. The new proposal is 12,000 square feet, which is a minor increase. The building footprint has been reconfigured to better fit the shape of the lot. This brought about the need for the reduced front yard and side yard setbacks. Since this is a comer lot, they have two front yards and two side yards. Even though they are requesting setbacks, the building would be set back more than 50 feet from the existing right-of-way of 140h Street, which has recently been improved. The Department of Engineering did not indicate any concerns with the reduction in setbacks. Any building encroachment is unlikely to be an issue in the foreseeable future. The building addition to the existing frame house does not require any variances. It falls within all the necessary setbacks. The request is just to modify the front yard setbacks to better accommodate the shape of the building and the unusual shape of the lot. This will also amend their previous Special Use approval. The Department was in support of all the requests. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 08050030 V, 08050031 V and 08050032 SUA, Carmel Hope Fellowship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach and APPROVED 4-0. TABLED UNTIL JULY 28 ei�hMaen - u- .. South Und a Limestone __t__e OpeFation TABLED JULY 17 Do -Apt No. 09090032 SU Appendix h• Use Table UndeFgFoand mining in _ The nc sere site is i a at 5345 East 100 Materials,Filed by 14. Wayne RheArs of PhARfs gnd A.4oldnvan for Martin Marietta Page 21 of 22 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2008 I. Old Business - continued 7-131. Go rele neN TABLED UNTIL JULY 28 lloeket NA. AMINO A, Seetion 331438IRBuild to hoe greater then 10' Beeket No. 0903002017 spetieu 33F,97.93 Height under 26' Becket No. 08030021 V SeeHen 231Z.07.01 One eeeupiable floff Beeket-Ne,-09040022 `� 1 seeNen 33F.08,01- Fleer Area Ratio minimum 0.5 Docket Nn 0903002317 Seetien 23F..06.03 Frontage minimum 70,04 Beelret No. 08030024 V Seetien2-3F.15.02 Par -king toevted in r_ont of buinldin_ s 1 �T.7S lRT! �Rtl�Tl�li ..... 1 . .. . � ... ... .RAW v 000000. J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adjournment Mr. Broach moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. Connie Tingley, Secretary James R. Hawkins, President S:\Board of Zoning AppealsWinutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2008I20080621rif Page 22 of 22 Michael Godfrey, CLU, ChFC BRUNSON & COMPANY, INC. 2050 E. 96th St. Indianapolis, IN 46240 317-575-0841 FAX 317-571-1088 brunsonco@cs.com �Uw d4d jolt v o t"` joja January 22, 2009 Christine Barton-Hohnes Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Right -Of -Way Dedication — 501 E 116th St. Statement of Commitment Christine; As part of the conditions for being considered for a Use Variance by the Carmel BZA, Kumiko Brunson & Michael Godfrey agree to the following: • The owner agrees to transfer fee simple to the City, without any financial or other compensation from the City to the Owner, that portion of the property that is within the right-of-way width prescribed by the Thoroughfare Plan at the time of approval and identified by the City as being necessary for any legal use consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan or other lawful purpose by the City. • A City project (or legal use consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan or other lawful purpose by the City) that does not require the full portion of the property that is within the right-of-way width prescribed by the Thoroughfare Plan at the time of approval does not preclude the City from further projects (or legal use consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan or other lawful purpose by the City) within that portion of the property that is within the right-of-way width prescribed by the Thoroughfare Plan at the time of approval under the same conditions as Item/Article 1 of this commitment. • The Owner agrees to make the above noted fee simple transfer within a reasonable timeframe after being notified by the City. • This Commitment shall expire at such time as the property is redeveloped (individually or as part of a larger development) or re -zoned. • This commitment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners' heirs, administrators, successors and assigns. 4'EFORM fork apacbu3 and chann- 167. me, pavate emry, 4,900 38.R12 300Imo, 3 in Imm down 570-3800 town, close a ban mute, 100E Gw,d,men Ave. L317k3.G.� LL IE snap Very ante IW S600bmo 3nna5WpMwasn4l] aw(°ewe. 30, BF3BRl2 oo sa 6r Incl. Dg50s813114 1]00 RR qq33pp�y SISI)Blac� �°���epe: d P 0Cd3BRl2 1146 fir Y�9eiA va, in e�iN 4848 _9.31TJ 100 SF�nn�Gar�no peels king Weter a ]ewer ]HNnroo. ]aut<1i#e2GyIi1NSA Y84Q249.900 WPoyIyBEEA.f ;W28A W eE ,SS]E]B]a]R �Brmmba eti�n. kit ugefence ac y 2 0dBR/2.5 Houses For IB 1700 17 RentFurn. L CURtAKEAW 9,900 4BR12 3311 31N13TRAESII° 3.000 4BR/2 3311 CARME House foram 38R�Great Raam, 1300Greg 377- v348aD9 R�pgeNpnZUBuy y1 N Oalq B4p1cc1Aar."ar m a Ice vd. 906.1ma sBsaaPcc,��5pp9)�E�O Fetiu917- ]��5ppGGAY11E1 E 2brm loth1Emm11iMr me Ca un IR & 1 90{MTSIDE2US N. EWI& Do Mlnm la Dy Yor Down Wm.5595. 253{aaB Must See! F HR-S Sc s.3 e esker .�l -W7 99td RNm.Cww.BR2�BA tlou Wpsh. TwD h se on Will wood9 ot, lG Ian a aped a 8. rood new 4r,,llacea remod- eled tan an, all ay les. save GG rsh,Ittd car par 49V f�A aX am ,, Ran. fra 12m Idgeal for i15AMMOs717 57&0526or gINEwarrior TO'IrVP rsvbp I%! �WW�ppiuUaaEE..O b `, Diem, 151h° JJty Incdf cbaiiry alRltlY mrtyyy$I�ch. Imm aLL c.y3V 7J0 WESTIRDE 4BR, IBA, €a 0 39 1911 NOVIT 38R, IBA, BBcpommopp9��5NN8ryry69pp2]WWtl44 TOOAy .$!0 weMO mo you can own w// Seller finananq for 10yrs NE 4607 E 191n ter a3a9 azot �3r�a'r"tl3br 1 49 g Micrliganurns 3b 679 57 md,sde Ave fin basa,ad seen padrl 2969 Odad Ln Itor AIC $390 W.qm WsmdcC mrmarage (C 5086 John Ed D, $1950 3BR 3 M wl afiln, waPa] best A w7 6plc, DR wooded lot, catfill tray ce5ngs, 4-or aft gar SW 20E.86WS1 WN 3BR, 3.5BA, towdaa9, Wog man, M W applarces FRDR washolhyr, 2car atl gar N 6248NormviewCt $1600 38R 8 Lok M IRGR WI I,pid M wl apples, DR ded 2caraftgm IE 633BCreekviewln SIS00 481F, 2.51k FR d Apt, LR M wla0 apples, 2 car all gar NE �rpropertyma nagernentl1c.com iM 1 3025.Warmn-West SKI Rae Ave. -West 3BR 2BRtBADIDIer3Mnmsivn Contra vvmm,Fmmtl yad Ce52 WWadi9bl BTibbs5525hno.S4WDep. S'4W.rmBPaeldy S490hwT¢SODap. 190 Ui U Oh tam 3BR. IBA Home Near 2BRIBAR9e Fe,mdW CarmluvN Eat Hcgmzl LR 2CaGa'CaemAY. Family Room wffire ace, Gaa9e ConsulSifill EnBmed JBIfA SladdaLL39EMm 481R. 1 BA Ger"Ac Hardi 2BRIBADaEb,Watr Paid Fkore, mad Nnthm, Big BmllageRmaSxBOq ML2:LY Rana flCalyd3B66hD 43B55rIo An 1Beboon aibaV,w,I¢a The 3BRIBADOLMfsagt C-w ,,, Osmoor 3 O N. Meridian. Fenmd Yam, F425ha�B0mktltlaGa lijla6Watr! BMridea 55ppeemm¢¢Sft01m. WaPevpn85hanml 43RI5BA2Cs Gsage BAek a NLBEC1RCRamdmtl2BRI Ranch. Woilam,Spadous. BADtlasl4axCalpeL S795'mo]1s18Pos1 Updaltas. S495Imo. 739 Grane Cam $1400 3BR2.50AORFRwmplc,Idl wlappics.,2care0gsr. W IWIlEsryWay $1300 3BR4BAbm9mne,FRk'WSS voftw LR20ed9w N TSeUndsayDI $1200 4BR. 38A, M of apple, tad tend. formal DRFRwfri kg mud m4 Mdwds throughout, 2 car attached garage W Houses, RenVBay 9 RENT (a awn eem s. All na. Nn ccre ,t ale,1 lovv in15 1 " Ce 91 LL l= tILSwy�3Sy,� AS�KSj�?qR�y�y,m� ]1)Ya1llM «tI117ae) GARDEN HOMES 9 ekmoMFg Irr2ba Rea rer. 75m. 50365Ba 3br 57001Ito.4 fiem MRd4brL5ba2cgar SM. 1636S.5Dn'e 50,056WEE Minnesota r And many moral S99 spedtlal OIAIF® 50 M i�g81 r villa WT d. n 1 wr�fl yv{�reak st or ZQ gPG 4m S at3tlGwp4go�d/5?n1Simiind bsmI l00'1�11 r1815-JS9tl. Is Out! 10819 fiL�I? i'635 D colngs, M wlaptlo, ,DR,2cars lgar E ImalSt $1000 an tear a9N M,I ter 0 go� NW ,rbour Tale $1000 plus, m-- Aoa kpt M wedoes )pies, Ig deck K 2BR2BAord% M7 adg M W WIM LR OR Etas N 117601abaokCh207 $925 2BR 2BA do GROR omDo, M of api WID, 2rd B and villa' b9my, 1 or did gm N 605 Kessler Blvd. $900 2BR IBA bona Ian, M sell Atla. LR OR ad, Ian, asrm 2mddgrN Houses, RenfBuy EA TBWEST 846R m amasbhhwn� 680 Nor R 773 �NSOYM�S �oDIeOforLR NL�. NICE P 8 3 W%COIAE!'Call 2552-- 46 to schedule a nOwing today. ,Ranch, Story. WWashl ton, � a`a d el I Houses For Renrilnfurn, 17J56D7side B7on °baace a allsR eE', ° $S 0 Pmnuwi Yrr W R BA garage, LINCOLR Rent a55°�mogcuRp, 3WWw ndyl3B_85 B,cum we m oa Pple 0cs800n, paateF Ib s 77]Slmomfi. �L�L22NN77..d 311uuF47eeppbbLLI1A4- WV e9R.38F anch, aw ale g open 11m nl . �f 14��77NNAAd $1A1 F,=N A>2(IQBA'a Eewntowhnma, ffishers capon, ran ra avail- an.f73951m aodl EN f8Z8aq �hk BPrgoiYr4ujri`I� rno e m r BROAD RIPPLE NLSTO N uCharmin R 175D sq burials. 3BR, 29A wl howls thruout fin bsmi, fence) kyd. uo87mo 4 33�Ai�2 92 EPPLE ' l en�2nd ppane wa 198 a I09sft9.. One fl.f, AIr, OAD RIPPLE- 14Wmo i1i jN vaalol la I5br NF4 Dd A DI 79p-t0)0a5 gs�3oade` .. :axDM sI�R°9rzs9itrjdr _199a1ome SARMEI NawarS�I a I Caoel. tons g �ft 511-9`8o1g°W sfie�1�5�m oa}��6JI�s��l�° Pwna455`,2? M4]37�aR aA M4 d bles 3BR BA, MOA6 5 911�4d CICERO 2 SR 15 RA, ul Electric. mat Lowliolnl P bedroom 1.5 both in GI rol A must Orsee e' $6a 80h11514e51oD50J1 60 NK Potcom CCI B22ehoms yeN%g0g Ndp O eei �seo deD 9189 no f hh gpLLp �I 2 BA bgmEK��57I6619 ddStu I, large, Wk me� 317 4§ hgn 9 NOBt4 ad mm Inyoo,,ur°fiomNom NOBLESVILLE 9 BR 1 BA. Moab, Mo a aeDosil p�I1p� e tPul WaOpehlnaton TNp �IR 'OF. o e fi 5 �66t1's. Over I nse ba- er0. a �a. mclu0e°d. �imy!s� e P cablagae IIITInI amL.weal�c 0ets �am' aie9° 1% and 1ut�ncl. �atrsr5�ei°ahb onoe�. 5�0'mo�tle0317�Y7 1rurJ. NORA 6 E 919 St Great MA hRrdllocls47J5197}253T out! WE CleamaterCwa, bbr�prindo, IooI ,D bVy eiv650ruse n1: FISH S SKI, RIVERFSeRON7 Wt. 3BG, FP UA A79 Oo is, Double. 43ee E. 75M.. Mapl Crime Watch ❑ CW_021109 ■ CW_020909 ■ CW_020609 ❑ CW_020109 ■ CW 012609 Roads — Interstate US Highway — Major Roads Minor Roads Subdivision Roads New Subdivision Roads Private Road or Drive Parcels: December 2008 SCALE 1 : 911 50 0 50 100 150 FEET 1 http://gis2.cityofcarmel.net/mapguide/map/map/carmel.mwf Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:54 PM solos B■ 0■■0©0loomonsoon monsoon a■■000■OOIs■m■0■ monsoon 0■■0©0■00■■nn■ �111 1111 monsoon o■■oo0noo■■■■■0■. ■■■■■o■ 000000noons■■00■ ■■loom■ ommoo0■0©■BnmO■■ ■see■■■ olsss0sooss■0101 ■■0000■ ■0onn■■ll■l■nnl■ ■■■©O■s ■0e■■■■■■■lno■■■ ■■0000■ ■0e■■■■oo■sl0l■■ ■■0000■ omon■■■oonn■e00n ■■0000■ 00l■l■■o0■■■■00■ ■no0■0■ ■0■n■■■0©■■■0■n■ = n■00■m■ ■0nn■■■n■■■■n■■■ ■10000n ■l■■■■ln■nn■n■■O ■■molls o■■■■nn■■■■0■■■■ SMIN 1111 ■■000■n n■■■■■■0©■■0000■ IMIN SEEN 1100111 E■■000■0©0■0000■ 30101 0111 n1000■■ on■o©0■©DO■0000■ 10101 1111 monsoon ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■sn 10111 1111 monsoon ■■■■o■■00l■■■■0■ =01 SEEN monsoon ■■■■■■■000■■■■■■ Olson ■■ ■■■■■■■00■■■0■■■ =11 1111 lommomm ■0■■■s0o0■■s■■s■ =01 1111 0■0000■ ■0■0■■0000■00■O■ • ■■0000■ ■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■n monsoon 101100011■■■■■lO =11 1111 ■■00■0■ ■0l■■■0■n■■■■■■■ =01 1111 000■00■ ■0■■■■■■n■■■O■■■ 1111 moss■■■ ■■■m■■■■■■■l■om■ •0001 monsoon ■os■■■■■■■®■■oo■ sons■■■ ■ommomol■■®n®®®■ZMI ■■■l■■■ l■mmomom■■mmomml ■■■■■n■ ■■■■mms■■■■■■ll■ SOON ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■Minn sill MISS Mill MINE Mill MISS Booi0000i000e000i0000©SUNNI oi SOON o©©■0000■0000000■000000■ ■o■■■■■e■ao■■■■■■■■■O■O■ Mill ■o®■■e■o■aoo■■■■■eoone e■SOON o■■■■■■■■oo■o■■■■■■■o■o■ sill o■■■o■■®■ao■©0■0■■■00■0■MISS 000■o■ool00000000000000■ MINES sill ®■■®■■■■■■■®■■■■■■■Isla■ SUNNI sill o■■■■■■II■■■■■■■■■■II■0■ ZONE Mill o■■■■■■■■ao■■■■■■■■■o■o■ ]NINE SOON l■■■■■■■■al■■■■■■■■■O■o■ MISS Mill see■■®■■■■■■■■®■■■■■■■■■ MISS NINE =11 ills ■■■®■■®■o©o■o■■■®■®■o■o■Mill ■o■®■■®■oo©■o■■■®■®■o■o■ MON Mill Mill ■■■®■■®o■■■■■■■■®■®■■■■■ NONE MIN Mill =31 Mill MIN MEN MN Mill Mill 6 sm logo mummoommo■m■ ■elosom■ Emil mmnm■■ggmR■m ■e■■■■■■ ORION Room menm■■om■■■l ■e■■R■■■ logo mells■mm■■■■ ■m■■■■s■ ORION ■gel ■m■mmsmmsm■I sell■■■■ ■■gm ■©■m■m■n■■s■ ■m■m■o■■ ZONE Egg■ eengm■■■■go■ ■mgmml■■ Noon me■ge■■■■mm■ ■mmmm■s■ logo em■om■em■mm■ ■ono■■■■ moms ■m■ossm■■■■■ sm■■■■■■ SUNNI moms ■e■■N■■■■■ol ■m■o■■g■ moms ■m■■■■■■■■N■ ■em■■■R■ on mmlmm■s■mgo■ ■mnnnll■ moos mmll■■mm■■mm ■e■■■■m■ moms mmll■■mm■■mm mmll■■mm ZONE moms sell■■■■■■■■ ■m■■■■m■ USES moms ■e■■N■n■mmen ■■■R■■■■ ■■■■Ell■ oleo ■m■■■■■N■mN■ mmmm sel■■■mmis■m monsoons moms ■■■m■■omm■■■ em■m■mms loll ®e■■■m■■■m■■ ■■m■■■■■ �_ loll ®e■e■■■■■■■■ ■m®■■■■■ moms ®e■■e■■m■■m■ loss son ONES moms sm■lo■■■mme■ m■mm■ll■ =11 moms ®e■■■■■■■■m■ ■■m■■■■■ moms mm■■o■mmmlom ■■mo■m■m =11 m■■■ ®m■lo■■n■■e■ n■m■■■m■ =11 moos ®■■■■e■■■■■■ ■■m■■■m■ =1 I ■ momm■n■■mm■m ■■mm■■■m moms m■mm■■■■mm■m ■■mmmmm■ loll m■mmmm®®mm®■ n■m®mmm■ ■■■■ ■■■R■n■■mm®■ ■■m■m®■s moos ■R■■■■■■■m■■ ■■m®mmom • moms nml■■■nmm■■■ ■■lsom■■ = moms ■■mm■■■■mm■m monsoons =1=1 d cnc January 26, 2009 Mr. Michael Godfrey Brunson and Company, Inc. 2050 East 9ei Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 JAws BRAINARD, MAYOR RE: 501 East 116'h Street property — Outstanding Issues Dear Mr. Godfrey, As requested during our meeting on January 23, 2009, please find the following list of unresolved issues associated with the property at 501 East H Oh Street and the requested use variance. The list of items was developed after meeting with the City's Right -of -Way inspector on January 22, 2009 and various members of the staff of the Departments of Planning and Zoning and Building and Code Services on January 23, 2009 and January 26, 2009. Right-of-Wav Dedication: Thank you for your letter dated January 22, 2009 concerting a commitment to dedicate right-of-way per the City's Thoroughfare Plan. As we discussed on Friday, January 23. 2009. the last sentence of the letter is a condition that cannot be added to this Commitment. I have confirmed this with the attorney for the BZA. Compliance with the Alternative Transportation Plan: I understand that this was discussed at the TAC meeting. It is required to construct the path across the frontage; commit the money to otherwise construct the path and include in same commitment as the right-of-way dedication; or seek a variance from this requirement. 1 understand that it was communicated at the TAC meeting that if a commitment were pursued that the amount of the commitment would need to be reviewed by the Engineering Department. 1 would be happy to discuss this with you and share unit costs from recent projects. As the commitments have not been formalized, 1 now have an example document from the attorney for the BZA that has been used in the past. Any commitments related to the above items need to be formalized in the document provided to me by the attorney for the BZA. I can provide this document to you at your earliest convenience. Right -of -Way Permit No.: 062107-03: Your email dated January 21, 2009 requested information related to the drive culvert under the drive apron. I reviewed this matter with Fred Glaser on January 22, 2009. Mr. Glaser indicated to me that he no longer had any issues with the culvert, apron modifications or the driveway resurfacing project. Per your request, the following City Codes and standards are considered by Engineering to be applicable to such an improvement project: 1. City Code Section 6-186; 2. Section 401.01 of the City's Storm Water Technical Standards Manual; 3. Section 304.02 of the City's Storm Water Technical Standards Manual: 4. City Code Section 6-227(a)(1); DerARINieNr or ENGINEERING ONr CAVC SpnARr:, CAR\Irr., IN 46032 OnIr.E 317.571.2441 Fax 317.571.2439 EMAIL gur Mr. Michael Godfrey January 26, 2009 RE: 501 East 116'h Street property — Outstanding Issues Page 2 of 3 5. City Code Section 6-227(b); 6. City Code Section 6-227(c)(1). 7. City Code Section 6-227(d)(1)(c); 8. City Code Section 6-227(h)(5). Complaints Concerning die Use of the Property: Building and Code Services has received various complaints concerning the property over the last two years and are investigating possible code violations; including the gravel driveway expansion. I believe this to be what is indicated as "an illegal driveway expansion" in the staff report to the Board of Zoning Appeals concerning the requested use variance. The following history concerning the property was provided to me by the Department of Building and Code Services: I_ 1 /24/07: The property owner applied for two variances on this particular property: one to change the use and one for the construction of an unpaved, uncurbed parking area. Both petitions were later withdrawn and the Residential Building Permit notes indicate that the petitioner's intent was to keep the property residential and to not construct the parking area. 2. 3/7/07: A Stop Work Order was issued when it was suggested that the property was being remodeled for commercial purposes on a Residential Building Permit and on a site zoned residentially. 3. 3/8/07. The Stop Work Order was lifted with the understanding that renovations to the structure would be residential in nature and that the property owner would not proceed with the construction of the parking area. 4. 6/24/08: Complaint was filed that the residence was being utilized for commercial purposes. The complaint cited numerous trucks and trailers and possible parking lot construction. 5. 9/10/08: Complaint was filed that a business is being operated from the home. 6. 9/16/08: Complaint was filed that the property is housing numerous abandoned vehicles. 7. 1 /9/08: Complaint was filed that the property has a business being run from it and/or that the residence being maintained is over the occupancy limitations for the City and also that the driveway has been expanded into a parking lot without permits. It is apparent that a parking area has been created on the property by virtue of a gravel expansion of the recently repaved driveway. Such an expansion for a residential use is allowed provided it results in less than '/a -acre land disturbance and it does not violate other applicable City Codes and standards. Such an expansion for a commercial use must meet different requirements. I have reviewed the matter of the parking area with Building and Code Services and Planning and Zoning. I understand that when requesting a commercial or other non-residential use variance or re -zoning of the property, existing gravel parking areas are required to comply with the City's Parking Ordinance (Section 27.03). If it is intended to utilize this gravel area for parking associated with the commercial use, this area must be paved and curbed in accordance with Section 27.03 or a variance from the requirements may be requested similar to the request made on January 24, 2007. Other code violations associated with this property are being investigated by the Department of Code Services. Urban Forester: I have not had the opportunity to review any issues associated with the improvements to the property with the Urban Forester. I understand that on 3/6/07 the Urban Forester noticed that portions of the site had been cleared. The permit at the time was an interior remodel with no exterior work to the Mr. Michael Godfrey January 26, 2009 RE: 501 East 1 16`h Street property — Outstanding Issues Page 3 of 3 property included. I am uncertain as to any violations of the City's landscaping or other ordinances or any requirements that may be imposed by the Urban Forester for mitigating the loss of vegetation on -site. 1 am also uncertain if the requested use variance requires conformance with the City's landscaping ordinance. Parking Requirements: I am uncertain if the proposed improvements to the property satisfy the parking count requirements of the City's Parking Ordinance or the Bicycle parking ordinance for the requested use variance. Please review this matter with the Department of Planning and Zoning. At the meeting with Planning and Zoning and Building and Code Services, we all agreed to make ourselves available for a meeting to review these matters. Please contact me by phone at (317) 571-2441 or by email at gduncanncarmel.in.gov to arrange a time. Z:lshered0IIi1nPR0JREV09 Rmu n Use Variance 501 Ew 116th Strmt.dm Page I of 2 DeVore, Laura B From: DeVore, Laura B Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 3:25 PM To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: 501 E. 116th Street (Brunson Property) Gary: From the Code Enforcement standpoint, we have had 4 complaints filed against this property in the past seven months. I have outlined the complaint history below. 1.24.07: Property Owner applied for 2 variances on this particular property: 1 to change the use and one for the construction of an unpaved, uncurbed parking area. Both petitions were later withdrawn and the Residential Building Permit Notes indicate that the petitioner's intent was to keep the property residential and to not construct the parking area. 3.7.07: A Stop Work Order was issued when it was suggested that the property was being remodeled for commercial purposes on a Residential Building Permit and on a site zoned Residentially. 6.24.08: Complaint was filed that the residence was being utilized for commercial purposes. The complaint cited numerous trucks and trailers and possible parking lot construction. 9.10.08: Complaint was filed that a business is being operated from the home. 9.16.08: Complaint was filed that the property is housing numerous abandoned vehicles. 1.9.08: Complaint was filed that the property has a business being run from it and/or that the residence being maintained is over the occupancy limitations for the City and also that the driveway has been expanded into a parking lot without permits. The most recent complaint was filed with our department on Jan. 9, 2009 and was regarding a business being operated from the home (Home Occupation Violation) and/or the property's residence being maintained in violation of the City's occupancy limitations, as well as the property owner's unauthorized construction of a parking lot on the property. We have established enough evidence and are prepared to issue the property owners a notice of violation concerning the violations of the following ordinances which may currently exist on the property: 25.18 Home Oecupation.i5 25.18.01 Standards Generally. A. Floor Area: Home Occupations shall utilize no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the gross floor area of the dwelling. B. Character: 1. The Home Occupation shall not change the character of the Dwelling, Lot or parcel; 2. The Dwelling shall not bear any indication from the exterior that it is being utilized in whole or in part for any purpose other than a Dwelling; 3. The Home Occupation shall not be permitted outside storage or display of materials in connection with the Home Occupation; 4. The Home Occupation shall not be permitted signs other than those normally permitted in the district in which the Home Occupation is located. C. Nuisance: The Home Occupation shall be conducted wholly within the Dwelling, such that there is no outside noise, vibration, odor, smoke, dust, glare or electrical disturbance. D. Employees. The Home Occupation shall employ no more than one (1) individual outside of the immediate family. E. Deliveries. The delivery of any materials for the Home Occupation will not exceed two (2) trips per day by any vehicle not owned by a family member. fy,1101#111119 Page 2 of 2 F. Equipment. The Home Occupation shall utilize only mechanical equipment that is customarily used for domestic purposes and is of a size and type that is similar to domestic mechanical equipment or is customarily found in a business office. 25.18.02 Excluded Uses: A. antique or gift shop; B. serving of food or beverages; C. animal hospital or commercial kennel; D. automobile repair; E. major appliance repair or services; and F. any processing or manufacturing that produces noxious materials or products. 27.03.01 All parking lots shall be paved with hot mix asphalt or concrete installed in accordance with the current standards of the City of Carmel. 2/12/2009 Hamilton Co., IN - Online Reports Page 1 of I Parcel Information Report 1. report type 2. property search Reset new search general parcel info. spring tax statement tax payments property card fall tax statement Disclaimer: The information available through this program is current as of 12/24/2008. This program allows you to view and print certain public records. Each report reflects information as of a specific date; so the informatioi different reports may not match. All Information has been derived from public records that are constantly undergoing change and is not warranted for i accuracy. It may not reflect the current Information pertaining to the property of interest. cc-)C6 a5 (0 b County Parcel No: 17-13-02-02-02-001.000 1 State Formatted Parcel No: 29-13-02-202-001.000-018 Property Address: 501 116th St E CARMEL, IN 46032 Deeded Owner: Brunson, Kumiko Sese Trust Owner Address: 2050 96th St E INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 Legal Description: NORTHERN HEIGHTS 105 X 180 A 1/2/92 FR MCCAIN 9200017 12/30/98 PER REP 9875608 2/26/01 FR ASPEN GROUP LLC 2001-8963 Section/Township/Range: 02/ 17/03 Subdivision Name: NORTHERN HEIGHTS Block: Deeded Acres: 0 Political Township: Clay Lot Number(s): 7 Recorded Date: 3/8/2007 The Recorded Date might be due to a variety of changes; such as annexation, right-of-way, split, or deed. Check the Transfer History Report for details. This application is developed and maintained by the Information System Services Department. If you have any questions or comments, please contact I © 2005 Hamilton Co. ►� W6-Y) gidcd (Jr Website Suggestions or Issues I Conditions of U a I Er iv acv Policy Site Mao I Technical Help I HO © 2006, Hamilton County, Indiana - all rights resKO.n�• . • . &'t -n ✓pa kJQI� http://www.co.hwnilton.in.uslapps/reportslrptparcelinfo.asp?sparcelno=1713020202001000... 1 /8/2009 APPROVED Note: LOCATION OF TYPE OF SURFACE cuts in pavement require Board of Public PURPOSE OF STREET �e/o e,- s Safety (BPM Approval. soy A-1 '1J 'Claa32 Dfitvc�tJ>W eoV�2 W DATE OF PERMIT: ESTIMATED DATE OF WORK: ' �S APPLICANT'S NAMBMI NAC4-- C, , &CFP6 ,E ✓ PHONE:. /�i WHO IS APPLICANT DOING WORK F( ADDRESS: 13 NOTE: UNDER SEPARATE COVER, PROVIDE NAMES AND CONTACT' OrALL SUB- CONTRACTORS TO BE IIWOLV MiN ON -SITE WORK ON THIS PROJECT. PERMIT ISSUED BY: `C (eipatare) SURETY BOND AMOUNT: SB 8a BONDING COMPANY: As applicant for this right-of-way/street cut permit, I understand and azm to all the specifications and conditions listed on the reverse side of the permit. I have inspected the repair of the above right-of-way/street cut and (D") If applicable: Check returned: By: be completely satisfactory. SURVEYOR LOCATION REPORT I hereby certify to the parties named above that the real estate described herein was inspected under my supers indicated and that to the best of my knowledge, this report conforms with the requirements contained in Sectio of 865 IAC 1-12 for a SURVEYOR LOCATION REPORT. .. ` 116th Street N a 25' a� � I Q) U tr 1 V J 31.5' . 21.14 ri Por m 36.4'/ z 0 1 Story House a C co w/ Garage « 7 I I Patio m Patio m 12' 14' J m O r7 Lot 7 10.2' o O0L Sc 4 r% r I I U J\\\\////// iA .g:.... %.,, C/EERRTTIIFIE 1 \ . CITY OF CARMEL W DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE June 21, 2007 FACXIMILE NO: (317) 571-2439 TO: Michael Godfrey COMPANY: Brunson & Company FAX. NUMBER: 317-571-1088 • �_ t ♦:kvr,=Mh1�t, COMMENTS: 062107-3 501 East 116th Street Attached hereto are two 2 ages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call (317) 571-2441 and ask for Fred Glaser. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual (s) or entity (ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, disbribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the forwared documents to us. !!m \$} c P®o $\7 lam §a§ ' �ƒt